aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (01/27/86)
J.Abeles writes: > In any case, I would like to point out that Israel is not > hostile towards the Arab States except to defend itself, AND OCCUPY OR ANNEX ANY PIECE OF ARAB LAND WHENEVER IT GETS A CHANCE! > For those who don't remember the UN Partition plan map, > its borders were drawn in many areas using a ruler on > a map with no concern for military defense. In my opinion, it is this israeli concern for military defense which is blocking Israel from seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. That concern leads many israeli leaders to adopt the axiom "The best defense is the attack or offense". This axiom was the israeli justification of its invasion of Lebanon in 1982. They (the israelis) may and are reusing it to justify further military actions or invasions whenever the balance of force tips in their favor. History teaches that many nations and leaders got trapped in that axiom whenever they adopted it. Eventually, it caused their downfall. From a politico-military point of view, Hanibal, Neron, Hitler ... and several others could trace their downfall to their strict adoption of this concept "Best defense = attack". Further, the adoption of this concept by Israel has the negative effect of making the israelis overlook any slight chance for a peaceful settlment. For PEACE IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF WAR!! _______________________ Chedley Aouriri
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (01/28/86)
> > In any case, I would like to point out that Israel is not > > hostile towards the Arab States except to defend itself, > AND OCCUPY OR ANNEX ANY PIECE OF ARAB LAND WHENEVER IT GETS A > CHANCE! If one acquiesces in the commonly-expressed opinion that the Israeli military is superior to the combined might of the Arabs' military, this statement would appear incorrect. That is because the Israelis have had many chances to annex "ARAB LAND" (as a result of that military might) and turned them down. Try to remember how Israel occupied the Sinai peninsula three-count'em-three times and gave it up just to get a piece of paper signed by an Arab leader. That piece of paper may not even mean much, but the Israelis took the intangible promise of peaceful relations for the tangible property called the Sinai peninsula during the Camp David negotiations. > > For those who don't remember the UN Partition plan map, > > its borders were drawn in many areas using a ruler on > > a map with no concern for military defense. > In my opinion, it is this israeli concern for military defense > which is blocking Israel from seeing the light at the end of the > tunnel. That concern leads many israeli leaders to adopt the > axiom "The best defense is the attack or offense". As far as "the best defense being a good offense" goes, I think it is a matter of strategy, almost a matter of semantics. The true issue is whether the perceived need for a strong defense is based on reality, and there it leaves no room for argument; i.e., defense definitely is required in a situation where one's enemies amass troops along your borders periodically, while publicly proclaiming their ardent desire to see you annihilated!
gottlieb@alliant.UUCP (Bob Gottlieb) (02/05/86)
In article <582@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> (Chedley Aouriri) writes: >In my opinion, it is this israeli concern for military defense >which is blocking Israel from seeing the light at the end of the >tunnel. That concern leads many israeli leaders to adopt the >axiom "The best defense is the attack or offense". This axiom >was the israeli justification of its invasion of Lebanon in 1982. >They (the israelis) may and are reusing it to justify further military >actions or invasions whenever the balance of force tips in their >favor. >History teaches that many nations and leaders got trapped in that >axiom whenever they adopted it. Eventually, it caused their downfall. >From a politico-military point of view, Hanibal, Neron, Hitler ... >and several others could trace their downfall to their strict >adoption of this concept "Best defense = attack". >Further, the adoption of this concept by Israel has the negative >effect of making the israelis overlook any slight chance for a >peaceful settlment. For PEACE IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF WAR!! I am totally dumbfounded at this letter. Totally. Israel has negotiated with any of its neighbors willing to accept its right to exist (while not agreeing necessarily on the borders). To date that has been one: Egypt. They negotiated, and the land taken as a result of the 1973 war (which was, like most of the wars against Israel, not started by Israel - you can quibble over semanitics on the 1967 war, but ignoring that for the moment) was returned. There is NO evidence that Israel is not willing to negotiate, given that the neighbor is willing to accept peace. Israel would LOVE peace. It would probably accept its original borders if it felt it could have peace. However, the history of the situation shows otherwise - Syria, Jordan, and Egypt have all attacked Israel. At the present time, Egypt is cool but friendly, Jordan is cool but not cold (although they still need to recognize that Israel has a right to exist before haggling over the borders), and Syria would still like to drive Israel into the sea. So saying that Israel will "overlook any slight chance" is an outragous statement. It is hard for the steer to negotiate with the butcher, and until Israel's neighbors (excluding Egypt) show some willingness to accept Israel as an entity, there is no chance for peace. Israel is willing to take a chance for peace (Camp David was definitely a chance), but it ain't willing to let its throat be cut. We've had enough martyrs, thank you. -- -- Bob Gottlieb UUCP: ...!linus!alliant!gottlieb Mail: Alliant Computer Systems Corp, 42 Nagog Park, Acton, MA 01720 Phone: (617) 263-9110 Foot: "You can't get there from here". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't know what I'm doing, and Alliant isn't responsible either, so there!"