From: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:09:09 GMT
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology

In article <1992Aug31.190913.21608@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>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     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.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withdrawn from most of the territory.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.

Another Bogus argument - having returned the territories does not guarantee 
that missiles will be launched against Tel-Aviv anyway. in fact they add
a VERY REAL danger of Katyushas at Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem and the
cutting to half in the "narrow waists" in Netania.
Conventional Missiles does not constitute fatal danger only psychologicaL
menace - the Scuds didn't help Saddam's ass in the Gulf war.

>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

I do not trust foreign defence in any case - if we have to resort to
this then Israelis can pack and find the first plane out. Leaning on
others is not very effective way of surviving [CF Bosnia, Kurdistan].

>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 I said if one beleives the Arabs - details does not matter.

>
>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.

Your analysis seemed skew to me, if the Arabs can crash Israel without
US aid (or other superpower) why should the Arab compromise at all.
They only have to wait. I think giving up or retaining territories 
can not save Israel if it is doomed as you characterize it. If the US
is getting Isolationist how can we trust any outside assistance they 
might promise. Acording to you view Israel is doomed and hence returning
the territories will at best lengthen her dying and in a more realistic
estimation (mine :-) shorten it.

I think that Israel is not doomed and we have a fair chance of surviving
with the territories and much lesser if we return them.

The reason the Arabs want the territories is that this is their only 
chance to defeat us - without it they have negligible chances. 

>
>|>>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.

What a cheap evasion of the subject, if Shamir was a Terrorist does
not matter - Palestinian must stop being terrorists. Do you think they
cannot give that? Or do you think that MK Shamir's past oblige the
Palestinians to commit terrorism to orders of magnitude more than he 
ever did? Arafat should learn from his buddy Mandella :-(
Do you seriously claim that Shamir during his office as PM acted as
terrorist?

>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.
>

Because, Right of Return==Israel's destruction!
I think that even the most naive Israeli who wants to live here (unlike
for example Yigal Arens who voted with his feet and therefore does not
count in this respect) reject the Right of Return. 

You cannot maintain a Jewish State where the majority is Arab. You may
think that Israel should not be a Jewish State but this is the heart of
Zionism - we did not make this awesome effort in order to create the
22th Arab state in the Middle East. If Israel is not Jewish (with
democratic rights to non-Jews) it is not itself and I find the whole 
business as pointless - Maimi (albeit the Huricanes) is much nicer than
Tel-Aviv to live as minority in.

>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.

Nobody aske them for the money - they only have to agree to this
reasonable issue. Unfortunately they prefer to milk the misery of the
refugees and oppose to solving this issue (as are the Gulf states and 
even Egypt).

>Phill Hallam-Baker

David.
-- 
=============================================================================
  David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but Temptation"
  s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
  davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines