From: eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf)
Subject: Re: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:13:45 GMT

wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.174905.11245@cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.165605.9014@usl.edu>, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>>...
>>Your paraphrasing ability is most commendable. However, your perspective of
>>history is not.

>No.  Your grasp on reality, Harry, is tenuous here.

>>Israel has *NEVER* been the aggressor in the Israeli-Arab
>>disputes. 

>Nonsense.  Without arguing about 1948 and 1967, I'll just mention 1957 
>and 1982 (Israeli invasion of Lebanon).  In 1973 Egypt and Syria
>attacked toliberate their territories.  There was no aggression in 1973,
>no attempt to acquire new territories.  

Are you seriously implying that there was no provocation from the Arabs in
1982?  Israel was constantly being harrased by the PLO from Southern Lebanon
with terrorist attacks and Katyusha rockets.  If that isn't aggresioon I 
don't know what is.

>>When Israel has launched attacks against Arab targets it has
>>*ALWAYS* done so either in retaliation for past Arab terrorist activity, or
>>(as in the case of the Six Day vistory) to insure a strategic advantage in an
>>inevitable conflict.

>Hogwash.  Expansionism and colonization ranked high among its motivations, 
>and sadly it still does today.  Zionists, since Hertzl, make no secret 
>about this. Ben-Gurion's conception was that "a Jewish state...will serve 
>as an important and decisive stage in the realization of Zionism," but only 
>a *stage*: the borders of the state "will not be fixed for eternity," 
>but will expand either by agreement with the Arabs "or by some other 
>way," once "we have force at our disposal" in a Jewish State.  His 
>long-term vision included Jordan and beyond, sometimes even 
>"the Land of Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates.

What Zionist leader claims colonization today?  What Ben-Gurion thought is no
longer relavant.  If Israel is so intent on colonization, why are there no
settlement's in Southern Lebanon?  You know as well as I do that colonization
requires a great amount of people - Israel is not a country which has the
resources to spend on colonization. 

>As early as 1938, Ben-Gurion had told a Zionist meeting: "I favor partition of
>the country because when we become strong power after the establishment
>of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of
>Palestine."

How is this relavant today? 

>Likud's platform includes the *East* bank of the Jordan river as part of
>Israel.  Don't tell me that this is for defensive reasons too.

Where is this written in the Likud platform and who seriously considers this?

>>In fact, Israel has traditionally gone to great pains in order to prevent as
>>many civilian casualties as possible.

>Tell that to the children of the intifada who are dying daily at the
>hand of your heroic foces.   Tell that to the thousands of civilians
>who have been dying in the villages and refugee camps in Lebanon as
>a result of Israeli bombing.

If the "children of the intifada" put away their stones, firebombs, and axes,
no one would be dying.  You make it sound as if the Palestinians are sitting
quietly and the ruthless Israelis are simply pulling them into the street
and killing them.  How funny it is that the murderers should complain about
themselves being killed.  Anyway, you know very well that lately more Arabs
have died at the hands of other Arabs than at the hands of the Israelis. 
And tell me how many Lebanese civilians were killed by the PLO when it occupied
Southern Lebanonn?  If civilians died from Israeli bombs, it was only the fault
of the PLO.  They were very well known for locating military bunkers in hospitals and guerilla bases in refugee camps.  You rant and rave so much about Israel -if the Arabs cared so much about their Palestinian brethern, why are there still
refugee camps on the outskirts of Amman and in Southern Lebanon.  Surely, Amman
isn't under Israeli occupation too?

>>This is a historically proven and
>>accurate fact. 

>This is your pure, self-righteous, fantasy; history and facts speak 
>otherwise.  Your assertions are simply myths.

>>Since the earliest days of the Jewish liberation struggles
>>against Britain, all Jewish revolutionaries tried to avoid civilian casualties
>>if *AT ALL* possible. 

>Tell that to the inhabitants of Deir Yassin and other villagers, old men
>women and children, massacred in cold blood.  Read up on the tactics of
>Irgun and the Stern Gang of thieves and thugs used to terrorize and 
>kill civilians.  Recall that it was Yitzhak Shamir who, in an attempt to
>justify the tactics of thugs like him, claimed in 1943 that "Neither Jewish 
>ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat."

Once again, the pot calling the kettle black.  I love it when PLO supporters
complain about terrorism.  As for Irgun and Lehi terror, it is a well known
fact that all means were taken to avoid targetting civilians.  Lehi and Irgun
targetted British military officials most of the time.  Even the bombing of the
King David Hotel was preceded by a warning by the Irgun calling for evacuation.
Read up on Deir Yassin - it isn't as clear cut of a case of massacre as you
think - there are several good accounts which contradict your version of the
story.  Once again, have you ever heard of Gush Etzion?  Sorry, the arguments
go both ways here.

>>This is still the policy of the IDF. Even in the Lebanon
>>operation of 1982, Israel risked Jewish infantry lives in attacking terrorist
>>positions (as opposed to air bombing the entire area) so as to avoid any
>>innocent casualties.

>Tell that to the 20,000 civilians who died and the other thousands who
>were maimed as a result of Israeli use of cluster and incendiary bombs
>on civilian areas during its invasion of Lebanon.  Even hospitals were 
>bombed.

As I stated above, the PLO used civilians as a cover just as Saddam used
his human shields.  What the PLO did is really analogous to Saddam's use
of military bunkers to hide civilians.  Israel had no strategic reason to
kill civilians just as the US had no reason to blow up a bunker full of
innocent people.  Why would either waste the manpower and ammunition?

>>
>>In fact, your claim that Israel has ever attacked Arab civilian targets is
>>outrageous. 

>No.  The fact that you have the balls to deny it is what is profoundly
>outrageous.  This sort of utter denial comes close to those twits who 
>deny that the Holocaust has happened.  Take off your blinders and face
>up to reality.

Certainly there have been instances where Israel may have attacked civilians.
Even if I grant you Deir Yassin (which I don't) there has never been any
Israeli policy to attack civilians even comparable to the Palestinians' war
of terror against Israeli civilians.  Nothing even comes close to PLO terror
which (along with the sentiments of Arab states to drive the Jews into the
sea) is an organized campaign to kill innocent people.  To even compare
what Israel has done is like comparing apples and oranges.

>Enough said.

>Waleed Muhanna
>-=-
>"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed
>by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing
>about them." -- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945

Did you ever bother reading the quote you have up there?  I don't even 
hear a peep out of you about the thousands of Arab attacks against
civilians and their attrocities.

Ed Shnekendorf.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc