dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/10/83)
>>>From: velu@umcp-cs.UUCP: >>>The most important thing however is to realize that the tactics and the >>>policies which the PLO has right now are almost identical to the to >>>those of the Israeli/Zionist Nationalists before the formation of >>>Israel. Now, the PLO is ready and willing to talk, but the US and >>>Israel are ignoring the problem. The tactics and policies are NOT the same. The Zionist movement aimed its violence at military targets, not at civilians. Deir Yassin is so notable because it was an exception. The PLO has consistently aimed its terror at civilian airplanes, offices, buses, schools, synagogues, etc. The "PLO is ready and willing to talk"???? I don't see them changing their covenant, which contains such statements as "the establishment of Israel is fundamentally null and void" (Article 10). As long as the PLO is by its very definition opposed to the existence of Israel, there is absolutely nothing to talk about. Israel has consistently expressed itself willing to negotiate with the Palestinians on the autonomy issue. But not with the PLO. >>>What would you like to see as a possible solution to the problem? >>>I think that the qualifications of the solution are as follows: >>> 1. Israel Remains where it is - not the annexed borders, >>> but the borders as set out by the UN. >>> >>> 2. PLO have autonomous rule over the area set aside for them >>> by the UN. >>> >>> 3. All hostilities in that area cease. The "borders as set out by the UN" were rejected by the Arabs in 1947 and never did come to pass. The only thing magical about the 1949 ceasefire lines is that's where the armies stopped. The land Israel took over in 1967 was taken over in the same way as the land in 1948. Perhaps the large number of Arabs on the West Bank suggests that they should have a measure of autonomy. But Israel is still entitled to control of the area for her own security. As an exercise in history, go back to the first week of June 1967 and dig out some old newspapers from your library (they're all on microfilm). Read about Nasser's gloating statements of how he was going to push Israel into the sea, and kill all the Jews. Read about how the Arab countries were united in their determination to destroy the Israel which we now take for granted. Then tell me again that Israel wasn't justified in occupying that land. >>>Oh yeah - regarding ''ALL THAT LAND'' which Israel returned to Egypt... >>>I think that 'ALL THAT LAND' is the least that Israel can do for Egypt. >>>Egypt has stayed out of all middle-east conflicts since that time. I >>>think that the Israeli's got more than their share of the deal. I find your attitude highly objectionable. You imply that Egypt had some kind of right to attack Israel, and that by "granting" it peace Egypt has somehow given Israel something she did not deserve. Where on earth did you get such ideas? As a direct result of the peace treaty, Egypt got (1) the entire Sinai peninsula; (2) brand new, highly fortified air bases; (3) the Abu Rudeis oil fields, from which it now exports $500 million per year to Israel; (4) U.S. economic support; (5) relief from the tremendous pressure that the constant war footing put on the economy. Israel got a piece of paper, the hope of future continued peace on her southwestern border, U.S. economic support, relief to the armed forces in terms of less pressure on one border, and passage rights through the Suez Canal. Both sides won, but I'd venture to say Egypt did better in a relative sense. And note that Egypt hasn't "stayed out of all middle-east conflicts since that time". The only conflict has been in Lebanon, where Egypt wasn't involved anyway. Politically, diplomatically and at the U.N. Egypt has used the Lebanon war to severely criticize Israel and to freeze the process of normalization of relations. I am all in favour of the peace treaty. I would like to have seen peace between Israel and all her neighbours 35 years ago (had I been alive then). Throughout her history Israel has aimed for nothing else. But by suggesting that Israel isn't entitled to peace (which you are doing when you say that the Israelis "got more than their share of the deal") you deny Israel's very right to exist. Dave Sherman Toronto -- {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave