From: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami)
Subject: Re: CLINTON SPEECH TEXT: RABIN MEETING
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:38:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.160848.4138@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.080602.12256@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.150934.11390@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>I didn't start out particularly sympathetic
>>>to Kuwait, but the combination of its behavior during and just after the
>>>war wrt Israel's decision to hold its fire in the interest of achieving
>>>common goals, which was the most honorable behavior I've seen out of any
>>>Arab country except Egypt, and Mr. Mohammed's articles, have made me
>>>rather like the place. That, and keeping you from attacking someone I
>>>respect independently of his country for his willingness to discuss
>>>things reasonably, are my only interests in the question.
>>
>>I fail to see Kuwait's the honorabilty in Kuwait's behavior towards
>>Israel in teh Gulf war. did you actualy expect them to bithe the hand
>>that helped them get back to their throne??
>
>That is exactly what, based on the behavior of some other Arab countries
>I've seen, I expected. I didn't get it. Kuwait surprised me greatly by
>showing some degree of appreciation.

Well, I think that although it was better than ever it was not even
close to noble. I was not so surprised because the Kuwaitis were really
in great trouble and couldn't afford to antagonize US (or even Israel).
I think that it was fairly predictable that they wouldn't mind if Israel
would have reacted to Iraq's provocation - that's not NOBILITY in my book.
They sure made progress - but one should not lose one's head from joy
these were hard times for the Gulf States and they might return to their
old self. (I think that's just what they are doing - PLO and Syria gets
money again as I understand it).

>
>>Kuwait did the minimum of not blatantly cursing Israel mainly for the
>>sake of American ears.
>
>Their reasons are impossible to determine; I think you're wrong about
>them. The act of refraining from blatantly cursing Israel is better than
>we've gotten from an Arab country besides Egypt in a century. Don't argue
>with progress, even if it's not as great as you'd like.
>
>In point of fact, Kuwait did more than that. A Kuwaiti official on a
>CNN broadcast at the time publicly thanked Israel -- by name, which is
>still something most Arab countries will not use -- for its restraint,
>and recognized how difficult a thing this was to ask of a country, which
>is a lot better than the United States did. Immediately after the war,
>another CNN report said that Kuwait was willing to consider a peace treaty.

Well, I think you are too optimistic and mistook some wartime CNN hype
to be truth - I wish all that beautiful things they said then was close
to reality. (Scud Launcher & Patriot Success reports/New World order etc.)
>
>>Maybe in their hearts they finally understood
>>what we Israelis are facing all these years (financed by their oil)
>
>Maybe they *have* finally understood it. What their oil has to do with
>this, I have no idea. What you think is wrong with understanding Israel's
>point of view, I am not sure.

I think understanding Israel's point of view is GREAT - I just think
that they only got a *glimpse* of it, much too little to reform them.
I hope I am mistaken bnd they understand it better.
Their oil was used in order to finance a great deal of what the PLO and
the "Confrontation Line" States (Syria and Egypt in the past) done to
Israel - terror, armament, propaganda. [ I think using it for helping the
Palestinian Refugees to settle in their places or build them new homes
were much more appropriate].

>
>>their change of attitude towads Israel is not to be hailed as nobility
>>- if they were unilateray stop all hostility against Israel and ready
>>to sign a peace treaty with us - that would be noble & honorable.
>
>They've said they were willing to discuss a peace treaty, and I have
>not seen Kuwaiti shells over Safed recently. Nor, for that matter, have
>I seen Kuwaiti money funneled into the PLO the way it used to be, not
>since the Palestinians betrayed Kuwait during the war. I'll settle for
>that as a start, gladly. Progress away from bad behavior should be
>accepted and rewarded, and by scorning it until it is completely up
>to your preferences, you're shooting yourself and Israel in the foot
>and seeing to it that we'll not get any more progress.

As a start it's OK, but no more than OK, I accept that they did
progress and I do not scorn this progress - I scorn the exaggeration
that some Isarelis and Jews (like yourself) are making of it.
You should set your expectations realistically so you won't crash in
disappointment. :-)) [Hope you won't]

>
>This is not the behavior that got us a country in the first place. We
>were willing to compromise, the Palestinians weren't. Look at the end
>results.

I think that this point is irrelevant to the thread since I didn't speaK
for or against compromise - but anyway I think that Compromise is not a
value in itself rather than a mean to get a target. One must weigh the
situation and decide in each situation.

I think that what got us our country was mainly the willing to stand for
your principles and fight on them and an EXTREMELY RARE circumstances 
, willing to partition was a tactic not a strategy - it was a great
tactic in the situation. However sometimes this tactic is horrendous
and futile (CF Munchen conference, Trojan horse etc.).

>>David.
>"Light one candle for those who are suffering pain we learned so long ago..."
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.mideast