From: perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:08:24 GMT

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     Israel has withdrawn from most of the territory.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withdrawn from most of the territory.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.

It depends on what kind of war you're fighting.  In a long ground war,
the WB has a large amount of military value - especially the hills
around Jerusalem (overlooks), but also sheer insulation value.  Now in
an air war, that is a very different story.  Until recently that wasn't
the kind of war that Israel would potentially face against Arab
neighbor(s).  

>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.  Now if you're speaking in terms of
assistance you might say what you're saying.  But you're just plain
distorting fifty years of history.  Point of fact, Phill - with the
possible exception of actions in Lebanon, all of Israel's wars have been
defensive only.  Not a one has been fought for conquest.

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

Hmm...the Arab states should take this to heart.  If they want a just
peace and compensation for refugees, they should also compensate the
nearly one million Jews who fled Arab countries in fear of their lives
following the 1948 war.  Insisting on the Palestinian problem only is
just plain hypocracy.

>|> 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.

Jerusalem is Israel's capitol.  Period.  Get used to it.  Divided city
arrangements have never worked, and won't work here either.  Especially
not if Arafat is in charge of a Palestinian state.

Other territories are negotiable, but not Jerusalem.  And E. Jerusalem
is *not* occupied territory.  Not when you remember a little history -
like what happened in 1948 and thereafter - Jews were barred from our
holiest sites for twenty years.   

>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,

Really?  This just ignores the last twelve years of American History, as
well as the platforms - announced - of *both* of the current major-party
candidates for president.  Point of fact, Phill - you're just plain full
of it here.

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

Funny.  Israel is not intransigent.  Its Arab neighbors are, and have
been for forty-four years.

> 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.

Please read the platforms of both parties.  Might teach you a thing or
two.

Rest deleted.

-- 
"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