dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (03/21/84)
~| From: paul@uiucuxc.UUCP (Paul Pomes)
~|
~| And where do we go to protest Israel's occupation of Lebanon, its
~| blatant act of war against Iraq (bombing their research reactor),
~| its suppression of the elected city governments on the West Bank,
~| etc?
1. Israel's occupation of Lebanon? In case you hadn't noticed, Israel
has been trying to get *out* of Lebanon for a while, in some way which
would allow the continued security of Israel's northern towns. It was
Syria which would not agree to the pullout of troops from Lebanon. Not
that I see any protests against Syria's role in Lebanon today.
2. "Research reactor" indeed. Research into nuclear weapons, perhaps?
Iraq is more than self-sufficient in oil and hardly needs nuclear
reactors for energy. The Iraqi leader had publicly stated within the
Arab press that his goal was an atomic bomb.
"Blatant act of war"? For your information, Israel and Iraq
are legally at war and have been since 1948. Iraq has consistently
refused to agree to any kind of peace with Israel or to acknowledge
its existence. Ever since 1948, the State of Israel has expressed
its willingness to negotiate a peace treaty with each and all of
its Arab adversaries. The Arab reply has always (until Egypt in 1977)
been "No peace, no negotiation, no recognition".
If there is even the *remotest* chance that the reactor
was being used to develop a nuclear weapon, Israel was entirely
within its rights to bomb it. Note that the operation was carried
out with pinpoint accuracy - *nothing* except the reactor was damaged,
and the only casualties were people in the reactor at the time.
Thank you, but I prefer criticism from the world to yet another
several million dead Jews.
3. "Suppression of the elected city governments on the West Bank".
<<<TURN ON HEAVY SARCASM>>>
Oh indeed. And all the citizens of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Libya, Yemen and the other Arab countries have elected governments.
Yes indeed, Israel was nasty, nasty, nasty to take away democracy
from a people who had enjoyed it for so long.
<<<HEAVY SARCASM OFF>>>
The mayors and councils which were dismissed were fomenting
rebellion and opposition to the Israeli government, in land which is
subject to the jurisdiction and under the control of the Israeli government.
If the people of the West Bank didn't wish to become under Israeli
control in the first place, they should have encouraged their (Jordanian)
government not to attack Israel in 1967. If they don't like it now,
they are welcome to leave for their own country (Jordan), just as
Jews throughout the Middle East left their homes for their own country
(Israel).
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davelat@stcvax.UUCP (Larry Tepper) (03/23/84)
> From: > Dave Sherman > {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave > > 3. "Suppression of the elected city governments on the West Bank". > <<<TURN ON HEAVY SARCASM>>> > Oh indeed. And all the citizens of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, > Jordan, Libya, Yemen and the other Arab countries have elected governments. > Yes indeed, Israel was nasty, nasty, nasty to take away democracy > from a people who had enjoyed it for so long. > <<<HEAVY SARCASM OFF>>> > Israel also denies the right to participate in the national government to Palestinians in Israel since it was captured in 1948. These people were given the same choice of participating in Israel as the American Indians were given to participate in America. What a deal! > The mayors and councils which were dismissed were fomenting > rebellion and opposition to the Israeli government, in land which is > subject to the jurisdiction and under the control of the Israeli government. > If the people of the West Bank didn't wish to become under Israeli > control in the first place, they should have encouraged their (Jordanian) > government not to attack Israel in 1967. To this date, most folks agree that it was Israel that attacked first in 1967. Judging from the result, it's obvious which side was really prepared for war. And no doubt at that point the Israel government concluded "Gosh, by accident we seem to have captured this land in an unfortunate but unavoidable conflict. I guess the only thing to do is to annex and settle it with our people. That way the world will know that we never had designs on it from the beginning." That's a great argument you have though. We can just wind back the clock to 1966 and give all those influential folks in the West Bank the opportunity to change history. > If they don't like it now, they are welcome to leave for their own > country (Jordan), just as Jews throughout the Middle East left their > homes for their own country (Israel). Their OWN country? Prior to 1948, when was there last a nation called Israel? BTW, those Middle East Jews are called Sephardim (yes, I do know you're aware of that, Dave) and from what I've read (a little sarcasm in his voice) they're really getting the red carpet treatment in Israel too. -- Larry Tepper - Storage Technology (disk division) uucp: { decvax, hao}!stcvax!lat { allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!lat USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028 DDD: (303) 673-5435
jsanders@aecom.UUCP (04/03/84)
# > From: > Larry Tepper > lat@stcvax.UUCP > > Israel also denies the right to participate in the national government > to Palestinians in Israel since it was captured in 1948. These people > were given the same choice of participating in Israel as the American > Indians were given to participate in America. What a deal! Mr. Tepper, you sure stuck your foot into it with that one. Israel wasn't 'captured in 1948'. Prior to the withdrawal of the British Mandate forces the region had been partitioned - part for the Jews, part for the Arabs. This division was accepted and supported by the Jews - even though the land had already been partioned along the same line once before and the Arabs already had their half (actually, 2/3!). In the interest of peace the Israelis were willing to let their piece get chopped up yet again. The Arabs however, clearly had no interest in peace, and on May 17, 1948, the day the Mandate expired, five Arab armies attacked the State of Israel loadly proclaiming their intentions: 'we will drive the Jews into the sea.' In no way, means, shape or form can the Israelis succesfull defense of their nation be termed as a 'capture'. Amazingly enough however, you managed to put your other foot in it in the very same sentence. Palestinians who live within the State of Israel (those lands within the 1948 armistice (not peace!) lines and Jerusalem) are full Israeli citizens and may and do participate in the govenment of Israel. The one single limitation from which they 'suffer' is that, for obvious reasons, they may not join the Israeli Army. They do however share a full, equal vote with any Jewish Israeli, and there are a number of Israeli Arabs with seats in the Knesset (Israel's Congress). (I seem to recall that most, if not all of the Arab Knesset members are from the Communist party). > To this date, most folks agree that it was Israel that attacked first > in 1967. Judging from the result, it's obvious which side was really > prepared for war. And no doubt at that point the Israel government > concluded "Gosh, by accident we seem to have captured this land in an > unfortunate but unavoidable conflict. I guess the only thing to do is > to annex and settle it with our people. That way the world will know > that we never had designs on it from the beginning." After putting both feet into it, it was kind of Larry to clean them off by carefully inserting them in his mouth. The Six Day War is a part of history, and one of which we know exactly what happened. Therefore it is not necessary to go searching for what 'most folks agree' on but to merely rely on the facts. At that time Israel was in a formal state of war with each and every one of its Arabs neighbors and a whole lot more of slightly more distant Arab states. These nations, clearly, often, and loudly announced their desire to destroy the state of Israel. Any country that would desire to survive under such circumstances would naturally have to prepare for war. Just before the start of the war, Egypt ordered the U.N. peace-keeping force in the Sinai out. Obviously, the Egyptians thought that they were more ready for war than the Israeli's. Clearly too, they desired a war; why else dismiss the peace force? The Egyptians then further provoked Israel by closing the Straits of Tiran to Israel. Closing and international sea-route, by international law, an act of war. (Thats why we don't stop the Soviets from sailing into the Carribean and they let us sail in the Black Sea.) Faced with a large number of countries, with armies larger then your own, with whom you are legally at war, who have repeatedly stated their desire to destroy you, who have in a clear act of war closed a vital shipping lane to you, who have ordered the peace force that stood between you and them out, and who are clearly gearing up for a full scale attack, what would you do? Well, we know what Israel did - they launched an air strike against the still grounded Egyptian Air Force, followed by a similar strike on the Syrian Air Force. Did this start the war? No it didn't. By law the war was started by Egypt when it closed the Straits of Tiran. -- Jeremy Sanders {philabs|pegasus|esquire|cucard}!aecom!{sanders|jsanders}