poli-sci (07/26/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Sun Jul 25 22:25:24 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Mon 26 Jul 82 Volume 2 Number 156 Contents: Theory of Elections (2 msgs) Theory of Israel and Lebanon (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 1982 2018-EDT From: Margot Flowers <Flowers at YALE> subject: voting systems article in Sci Am In the June 1976 Scientific American there is an article "The Choice of Voting Systems" by Richard G. Niemi & William H. Riker. It is summarized as: Any voting system can lead to paradoxical results where losers are preferred to winners and winners become losers. In certain situations, however, some voting systems are better than others. It's also available as offprint number 689. It's been too long since I've read it so I can't make any particular recommendation, but I remember liking it. -- Margot Flowers Yale AI Project ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 24 July 1982 19:04-EDT From: Leonard N. Zubkoff <Zubkoff at Cmu-20c> To anyone looking for more details on the paradoxes of voting theory and the reasons why a "perfect" voting system doesn't exist, I heartily recommend the following two books: An Introduction to Positive Political Theory William H. Riker & Peter C. Ordeshook The Theory of Political Coalitions William H. Riker Leonard ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1982 1856-PDT Subject: Israel and Lebanon (continued) (long) From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI> When a discussion degenerates to name-calling and slurring, it's usually a good idea to just quit and walk away. I'm sure than most people on this list recognize such tactics (by now) as substitutes, rather than supplements, for intellectual content. This issue, unfortunately, is probably too important to be decided by superiority in verbal abuse, so I'll just try to reply briefly to the substantive items in Arens's response. I claim that what Leavitt is saying is nonsense, as anyone who has heard Israeli representatives recently knows. The second and third myths are almost literal quotes from an interview with the Israeli ambassador to the US on ABC's Nightline two (or three) days after the beginning of the invasion, and if Leavitt doubts the first and fourth I will make the effort to come up with precise sources for them too. I trust that is not necessary. Whether the claims Arens discusses are or are not straw men should now be perfectly clear. I don't believe that his response, simply reasserting that they are real Israeli claims, in any way addresses my demonstration that, with one exception, they simply weren't. The exception is the issue of whether 25 miles was the original goal. The controversy is in the implication that 25 miles was never the true goal and that Israel was being devious in its initial claim. The proof offered for the deviousness is, again by implication, that Israel went further than 25 miles. My point was (and remains) that an equally good explanation (better, unless you are systematically suspicious of Israel), is that the original goal of 25 miles was met so easily that they set a new goal: driving the PLO out of Lebanon. Leavitt says: "Israel was invaded by the armies of half-a-dozen countries when it became independent. All but one of those countries continue to claim to be at war with Israel, and a few of them have never recognized any cease-fire in the war." Everything in this paragraph except for the fact that Israel was invaded by the surrounding Arab states after its establishment is either misleading or simply false. In 1949 after talks held in the Greek island of Rhodes, all the warring countries reached armistice agreements with Israel. . . . No other country in the region is in a state of war with Israel. My nearest dictionary defines an armistice essentially identically to a cease-fire: "a temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement of the parties, as to discuss peace; a truce [American College Dictionary]". <enter flame mode> An armistice is not peace. An armistice followed by 34 years of every nonmilitary warlike act a group can do to another group is not peace. An armistice followed by an international economic boycott is not peace. An armistice followed by massive economic contributions to those who continue the military fight, day in and day out, is not peace. An armistice followed by policies that absolutely deny travel and communication between the citizens of the countries is not peace. An armistice followed by half-a-dozen episodes of military hostility on the same issues as the first episode is not peace, either. It is war. Does anyone else on this list take seriously the claim that "no other nation in the region is in a state of war with Israel?" <leave flame mode> In another reference to the PLO Leavitt writes: "The PLO's goal has always been the elimination of the state of Israel -- nothing more and nothing less. [...] When it talks about Israel's giving up the "occupied territory" it is referring to the entire state of Israel. [...] Although they have been given innumerable opportunities to do so, the leadership of the PLO has never denied it". Again, this statement demonstrates ignorance of the true nature of the PLO. Proponents of Israel complain that the WRITTEN documents of the PLO demand a "secular democratic state in all of Palestine" (what's so bad about that?), and that oral pronouncements to the effect that the PLO will agree to a separate state are meaningless in the absence of written changes. This point is arguable, but no one can claim that PLO leaders have never acknowledged the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the state of Israel. . . . I guess the only response is to ask what all of this has to do with the PLO's goals. To acknowledge the possibility of peaceful coexistence publically, for consumption in Israel and the United States, after getting badly beaten on the battlefield, is neither a very strong statement (compare it to Sadat going to Jerusalem) nor is it really very convincing when others in the PLO (George Habash and many others) say "never" the next day. "The PLO, a government without a state, has a budget approaching $1 billion a year, with most of that going to non-military programs. One Western diplomat, a commercial officer in his embassy, said several months ago that the PLO was the second-largest employer in Lebanon, behind only the Lebanese government." The fact that the PLO has had to become a government in the area it controls politically is an interesting point. Okay, so I will modify my statement: I agree that an important PLO goal is to become the government in the territory that is now Israel. I don't believe that this seriously alters my point about what it is the PLO wishes to do first: destroy the state of Israel. Now look, I lived in Israel myself for 17 years and I know what life is like there. I assume some of the other readers of this letter have visited Israel. All I can say is that either Leavitt is crazy or else he's knowingly lying. No other way about it. Sorry. Actually, there is another way: I could have been mislead by all of the reports that have come back about armed life in the towns and settlements along the border and the vigilance necessary in the big cities. I'm sure that many Americans who have not visited have been exposed to such stories, both from friends and family as well as from the various media. But in claiming perfect, unbiased, knowledge of the true nature of life in Israel, Arens definitely makes a claim that one must listen to. I guess the only, much weaker, claim from personal experience that I can counter with is that in my mere seven years of research and teaching international relations (not at Berkeley, I'm afraid--just a few Big Ten schools), nearly all of what I have discussed above was accepted as reality without serious question. But, I do admit, arguments from personal experience do sound rather weak compared to analysis; on the other hand such arguments are an improvement over unalloyed name calling. Enough for now. Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI> . ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1982 19:57:56-PDT From: Kim.arens at Berkeley Subject: More on Israel and Lebanon As for The New Republic piece -- It doesn't make the Israeli point at all. All it states is that the PLO violated the cease fire in ways that caused the commander of UNIFIL forces to warn them that may lead to an Israeli invasion. Big deal. The point is that it had been widely known for months that Israel was only searching for an excuse to invade Lebanon. The PLO violated the cease fire on certain occasions, AS DID THE ISRAELIS. UNIFIL reports which were mentioned in the US only in an article in the Christian Science Monitor (in late March I believe) claim that Israel was violating the cease fire agreement then by moving tanks into areas of southern Lebanon. The Israelis were trying to get the PLO to respond so that they could invade Lebanon with what might seem like a just cause. When this didn't work, more serious provocations were used -- such as the bombing of targets inside Lebanon. Three such attacks on separate occasions did the trick. The PLO fired back. And Israel invaded. J C Pistritto quotes an Israeli commander who says that in Sidon and Damour the Israelis found enough weapons "to equip an army of a million men". I think that the exaggeration speaks for itself. He goes on to claim that "Over 400 tanks were discovered in PLO hands, thousands of anti-aircraft guns, even including SAM 6 and 7 missiles" -- this is ridiculuous almost beyond belief. The number of tanks the PLO had was on the order of TEN (10). A force of 400 tanks on one front is a very formidable one even in US military terms. You can't hide so many tanks, and you can't lose them. Where did they fight?? Where are they now??? This is, purely and simply, a lie. And so is the claim of the existence thousands of anti-aircraft guns and SAM 6 and 7 missiles. I follow the Israeli press very closely, and even they have never claimed that the PLO had SAM 6 missiles. Lets face it: Any person who, like Pistritto, makes such idiotic claims should be hard pressed to explain how it is that Israel managed to conquer all of southern Lebanon in a couple of days. And as for the undisputed fact that the PLO had SOME weapons in Lebanon, I don't think there is anyone around who would doubt their need to be prepared to defend themselves from agression, is there? For those who have forgotten, let me repeat: despite all the various weapons the PLO had in southern Lebanon, NOT A SINGLE SHOT WAS FIRED FROM THERE INTO NORTHERN ISRAEL DURING THE 10 MONTHS OF THE CEASE FIRE, EXCEPT IN RETALIATION FOR HEAVY ISRAELI BOMBINGS. I would appreciate it if some of the supporters of Israel here addressed this fact. And Leavitt is at it again... "Israel's policy of slowly making it more difficult to withdraw was explicitly chosen to try to convince the Arabs that time was not on their side" Hmmm... An unfortunate side effect of this policy is that it also makes it more difficult for Israel to withdraw. I see no reason to doubt Begin's (and many other Israeli officials') numerous statements about Israel's intention to remain in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for good. The Israelis have already taken over more than 30% of the land in the West bank, and have settled some 40,000 Jews there. They have plans of moving hundreds of thousands of more Jews there in the next few years. Nothing of this magnitude was ever done in the Sinai. "Israel's post-1967 area was a much more defensible area than the pre-1967 one. In the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) the length of the border was reduced, as it was in the Gaza; a defensible natural border was substituted for a line on a map in the Sinai". In the West Bank the border was replaced with a meandering stream (the Jordan river) which is much longer than it would seem to one looking at a large scale map. Nothing could be further from the truth than saying that in Gaza the border is now a natural one as opposed to a line on the map -- the border, as agreed to with Egypt recently, is simpy a line drawn on the colonial British maps. It even cuts through HOUSES in the town of Rafah. And let's not forget what we have BEHIND these 'secure' lines. A million and a half Palestinians ruled militarily with an iron fist in a country of about 3.5 million Jews. And Leavitt calls this security. "Jordan never had sovereignty over the area west of the Jordan--they simply had occupied it at the termination of a war that they started. The justification for Israel staying there is simply that it belongs to Israel as much as it belongs to anyone". In fact, in an agreement made in 1948 between Ben Gurion and the king of Jordan, Jordan and Israel divided between them the areas which were supposed to become the Palestinian state according to the 1947 UN partition resolution which established the Jewish state too. So Leavitt is implicitly claiming that a large part of pre-1967 Israel is held by Israel unjustly. I wonder what Israeli officials would think of this... In any case, all this does is make it abundantly clear that the only people who have a just claim to this area are the Palestinians, who have always been living there and have been denied their right to self determination -- by Jordan AND by Israel. Enough of this. The important thing that must be understood is that: Israel wishes to retain the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and in order to do so must crush any Palestinian opposition, indeed -- any Palestinian national sentiment. The PLO embodies these national sentiments and is viewed this way by the great majority of Palestinians, and so must be eliminated. THIS is the real reason for the invasion of Lebanon, and the only explanation for what is going on there and in the other occupied territories. Yigal Arens, UC Berkeley ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------