From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
Subject: Re: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:56:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.161313.8281@cs.brown.edu> hm@cs.brown.edu (Harry Mamaysky) writes:
>In today's (9/11/92) New York Times (NYT) there is a front page article entitled
>"Israelis Disclose Talks with Syria on Steps to Peace." The article states that
>the Rabin government is very seriously considering giving back at least parts
>of the Golan in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement with the Syrians.

	The Rabin government is seriously considering
	peace with its neighbors.  Returning the Golan
	is simply one condition for achieving that peace.

>Of course, I feel (as hopefully we all do) that every peace treaty which Israel
>signs with its Arab neighbors is a tremendous and highly commendable
>accomplishment. Peace is ultimately the desire of every Jew and Arab (and any
>rational person for that matter).

	But, of course, peace (just as in war) carries a price.
	And if one can escape that price, then one will surely
	make every attempt to do so ;-}

>However, I am not fully convinved that land concession is a correct course of
>action in this situation. I know that the Syrians are most adamant on the
>issue of land return for peace. Then again so are the Palestinians and the
>Jordanians.Israel, though, does not seem to be in a position in which it could
>realistically make land concessions. The Golan Heights are of vast strategic
>imprtance to Israel. Besides the fact that the Golan is a very mountaneous
>region, it also happens to lie in very close proximity to Israel's sole source
>of fresh water.

	The "vast strategic importance" argument is bogus.
	Rapid evolution of weapons systems and their general
	availability has rendered territorial boundaries
	incapable of providing protection from attack.
	Only viable intelligence and air-combat capability
	can protect a population today, and Israel has
	the best services in the region---better by far
	than most in the developing world.

>After decades of unprovoked hostility on the part of the Syrians, how can
>Israel ever be fully certain of Syria's sincerity to abide by a peace
>agreement. What is Syria just wants the highlands back so as to be able to
>more easily attack and shell Jewish settlements close to the Syrian border.
>This would mean that Israel would once again have to rely on military
>operations to liberate the already-once-liberated Golan. And certainly, Jewish
>lives are not taken very lightly by the Israeli government.

	After decades of unprovoked hostility on the part
	of the Israelies, how can Syria ever be fully certain
	of Israel's sincerity to abide by a peace agreement.
	What if Israel just wants to keep the highlands so as
	to be able to more easily attack and shell Syrian
	settlements close to the Israeli border.  This would
	mean that Syria would once again have to rely on military
	operations to liberate the already-once-liberated Golan.
	And certainly, Syrian lives are not taken very lightly
	by the Syrian government.
					(paraphrased from Harry Mamaysky)


>I believe, in fact I might add I hope, that Rabin is planning to offer only a
>token land exchange for peace. Certainly, in such a scenario, Israeli security
>would not be threatened. Furthermore, after years of publically declaring that
>it will never even talk peace without an Israeli concession to give back
>liberated land, Syria would benefit from a token concession in that it, and
>the Assad government, would be able to save whatever face they have left with
>the international community.

	Both Rabin and Assad need a comprehensive treaty
	because both Israel and Syria need lasting peace.
	Your token gestures are, at best, token gestures,
	not earnest negotiation in good faith, but merely
	subterfuge for a strategy of wait-and-see.

>Furthermore, without the support of the once mighty Soviet Union as a backprod,
>Syria no longer poses the military threat it once did to Israel. Nor can Syria
>count on the Soviet influence to act as a deterrent to the world's
>disenchanment with Syrian political views. Of course, Syria still does have
>its oil rich Arab buddies. But then again, some of those are also realizing
>that peace with Israel is an inevitability, now that all hopes of driving
>those darned Israelis into the Mediterranean have long ago been lost.

	By your logic, it would seem that a surprise
	nuclear attack by Israel upon Syria is the best
	method of ensuring future Israeli security.
	Are you prepared to risk such an operation?
	Do you believe the benefits outweigh the costs?

>Indeed, then, it would seem that a token gesture on Israel's part would be the
>proper (necessary ?) thing to do. For one, this would allow Syria to save
>face. Secondly, it would show the world Israel's sincerity towards a
>comprehensive peace agreement. Thirdly, this would appease George's ever more
>prying political policy in the Middle East. Finally, Syria, too, should feel a
>certain sense of urgency now that George may soon be leaving office; and rumor
>has it that Clinton will not be quite as lenient with the Syrians as the Bush
>administratino has been.

	Your attempt to politicize the peace process is
	as artificial as it is transparent.  The Mideast
	needs peace so that it may join the developed world.
	Israel is part of the Mideast, and if it wishes to
	participate, it too must work to achieve peace.
	For Israel to claim special status above its home
	region is as arrogant and as shortsighted as the
	Afrikaner's attempts to construct Aparteid.

>Of course, I mean to make no light of the current situation. It is of grave
>concern that peace be established in the Middle East between Israel and ALL of
>its Arab neighbors.

	Yes, provided, I suppose, that the status quo
	does not shift perceptibly?

						Gerard Vignes

-- 

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast