From: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israel's peace talks with Syria
Date: 12 Sep 1992 17:40:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan H. Stein)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) says:

>
>	Israelies who are reluctant to abandon the Golan,
>	without strong guarantees from Syria that the territory
>	will not become a hostile promontory, are to be commended.
>	Their caution tempers their enthusiam for peace, and the
>	two will serve a foundation upon which treaties can be built.
>
>	But those who refuse to compromise on this issue
>	are as foolish children making fire in a field of dry grass.

Compromise is a two way street.  Syria must compromise as well.  There must
be a give and take, but not on the Camp David model where Israel did all
the giving and Egypt did all the taking.
>
>>
>>I agree that peace is in everyone's best interest. Realistically, though, how
>>much of the Golan do you think Israel would ever be willing to give back.
>
>	Only that which is Syrian and not Jewish land.
>	The entirety (100%), I believe.
>
Considering the fact that the boundaries in that area are all of rather
recent origin and in some ways arbitrary, it is naive or ingenuous to call
the Golan Heights Syrian land.  It was only attached to Syria rather than
Palestine because of a political deal between Great Britain and France--in
other words, the fact that Syria controlled the Golan Heights at any time
was an historical accident, and the result of a backroom deal.  It was
never used as a n integral part of Syria, but only as a staging ground for
attacks on the Jewish population in the valley below.  In light of that
history, any reasonable compromise must include the sharing of the Golan
Heights between Israel and Syria.

>>|> 	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?
>>
>>This is again an outrageous warping of what I have written. By no means am I a
>>proponent of unnecessary violence. Human lives, Arab and Jewish alike, are the
>>most important things with which this Earth has been blessed. To even suggest
>>that I support unprovoked nuclear attacks is preposterous and untrue. Please
>>never put words into my mouth again.
>
>	I apologize if I have placed anything into your mouth
>	which did not belong there.  The rhetorical questions
>	were intended to gauge the depths of your determination
>	to resist territorial compromise.
>
>>The sanctity of all human life is unarguable. This is why we need peace - in
>>order to ultimately save lives. Of course, as peace built upon straw, where
>>one side is exploited by the other is no peace, and may infact ultimately lead
>>to great blood shed. This is to be avoided at all cost.
>
>	Are such philosophical dribblings truly beneficial
>	to this discussion, or are you simply filling in
>	empty lines on the terminal?
>
>>|> >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.
>>
>>I attempt no politicization. I am merely speaking pragmatically about the
>>current political situation in the international community. Syria needs to
>>cover its ass (so to speak). It does not want to find itself in the same
>>position - that of a political outcast - as Libya and Iraq now do. Syria needs
>>credibility, and that is exactly what these "token land concessions" would
>>give it.
>
>	You seem to see the peace process not a hope for the future
>	but rather a convenient, temporary artifice through which
>	Israel may profit and prepare for the next crisis.
>	I must admit that I am not surprised by your cynicism,
>	although I am certainly dissappointed.
>
>>Lastly, I am a proponent of peace. I do not advocate, though, a blind peace
>>treaty. Syria, and the Arabs, have been the agressors in the Middle East
>>struggle. Israel paid for the Arab agression with the lives of her children.
>>These can never be given back. The Arabs must, too, learn to accept the price
>>of their actions. War is not a no lose proposition. To start a war means to be
-- 
bx573@cleveland.freenet.edu----Alan H. Stein----stein@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:19855 talk.politics.soviet:7844 soc.culture.greek:8750 soc.culture.europe:8305 soc.history:8190 news.admin:7555