abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (10/11/85)
Four events: 1) While vacationing on a Greek island, Israelis are murdered by Arabs. It is universally accepted that the murderers are trying to instill terror in the Israeli populace. It is likewise accepted that these Arabs perceive that their actions will satisfy their hatred for the Israeli, but will not tend towards advancement of any material goals which they have (e.g., causing the Israelis to give in to demands, or causing the betterment of the lives of any of their people). 2) Shortly afterward, Israeli planes score an astonishing military success in destruction of the PLO headquarters in Tunisia. On the military side, their action is a incentive to war with Tunisia, should the Tunisians wish to view it that way. However, it is testimony to the acknowledged justification for the Israeli action that nobody, including the Tunisians, regards the Israeli attack as a cause for war, or indeed, even as an attack against Tunisia. (Actually, the Tunisians probably had to be forced to accept the PLO base following the PLO's ignominious retreat from Tripoli under Israeli protection!) Since Tunisia is a sovereign state, and the PLO is merely an organization, the case cannot be made that the Israeli action constitutes terrorism... terrorism requires the perception, absent here, that one destructive operation was mounted solely for the "psycho-offensive" purpose of threatening other individuals with what make happen to them should they fail to satisfy the terrorists' demands. The label of "terrorism" cannot legitimately or honestly be applied when an action is perceived to be both defensive and directed against those individuals (not their allies, countrymen, families, or coreligionists) who continuously inflict damage. The label of "terrorism" must be applied when an action is mounted primarily to influence not its target, but the emotions and fears of related individuals, when action is mounted not to acheive a positive goal but to destroy something with no real expectation of material gain, and when the ostensible primary goal of the action is only to manipulate universally-held opinions and emotions. The Israeli attack is not terrorism. 3) An Italian ocean liner cruise ship carrying some Americans is taken over by Arabs who proceed to aggressively dominate passengers and then murder a defenseless and severely ailing Jewish man. Obviously this is terrorism. 4) We Americans capture the perpetrators of the hijacking. Questions: Why was Egypt helping to return them to the PLO? If the PLO claimed not to be involved with the hijacking, can we assume that they would punish the perpetrators (I doubt this highly)? By capturing these terrorist-criminals, we have begun to reassert our power in the world--and our American system of democratic government is the best one to have that power! Egypt cannot be trusted--as Bill Moyers said on TV the other day, we are sending them about $6 billion per year basically as a bribe to go along with us politically. Actually their real sympathies are with the other extreme anti-Israel Arab countries. They tried to on the fence, but this time we checkmated them. Let us hope it will augur well for future operations against Arab terrorism. More comments--since the PLO denied involvement in the operation against the cruise ship, no one can argue that it is inappropriate to refer to the terrorists as "Arabs." It may be that their venomous verbal attacks against Israel (as well as each other) have borne fruit in the creation of a large number of psychologically twisted personalities among their young people. These personalities believe that it will be better for them as individuals to go on rampages to attract attention to themselves than to pursue their education and improve their standards of living. As for the Israelis, it would be beyond my comprehension to see how anyone could have trouble perceiving the following: The Israeli government cannot permit, if it is at all within its power, Israeli citizens to be threatened to the point that they cannot feel comfortable while travelling abroad in friendly countries. The destruction of PLO headquarters is simply the result.
dave@andromeda.UUCP (Dave Bloom) (10/14/85)
In article <446@mhuxm.UUCP>, abeles@mhuxm.UUCP writes: > 4) We Americans capture the perpetrators of the hijacking. Questions: Why > was Egypt helping to return them to the PLO? If Mubarek didn't make it seem like he was outraged at the US commandeering of the Egyptian airliner, chances are he would have already gone the way of Sadat and been assassinated. Radicals within Egypt are already staging violent demonstrations... imagine if he would have co-operated with the Americans??? I personally think the commandeering of the Egyptian jet carrying the PLO hijackers went too easy, too smooth. Maybe Egypt cooperated with the US, giving them take-off and flight plan info, while at the same time agreeing to denounce the whole affair to the press. That way they accomplish two things: They retain their diplomatic ties with the US while saving face with the Arab world. Pretty clean. What do you think??? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- allegra\ Dave Bloom harvard \ pyramid\ seismo \ pyrnj >!andromeda!dave HOME: (201) 868-1764 ut-sally >!topaz/ WORK: (201) 648-5083 sri-iu / ihnp4!packard / "You're never alone with a schizophrenic...."
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (10/15/85)
> > I personally think the commandeering of the Egyptian jet carrying the PLO > hijackers went too easy, too smooth. Maybe Egypt cooperated with the US, > giving them take-off and flight plan info, while at the same time agreeing to > denounce the whole affair to the press. That way they accomplish two things: > They retain their diplomatic ties with the US while saving face with the > Arab world. Pretty clean. > > What do you think??? > allegra\ Dave Bloom Don't underestimate the American military. I think the Saratoga was entirely capable of monitoring the radio frequencies and picking up the rather obvious transmissions between Egypt and Tunis. After all, the Saratoga is a floating airport with a lot of spy facilities aboard.
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (10/16/85)
("> >" and ""= J. Abeles; ">"= D. Bloom)
> > 4) We Americans capture the perpetrators of the hijacking. Questions: Why
> > was Egypt helping to return them to the PLO?
>
> If Mubarek didn't make it seem like he was outraged at the US commandeering
> of the Egyptian airliner, chances are he would have already gone the way of
> Sadat and been assassinated. Radicals within Egypt are already staging violent
> demonstrations... imagine if he would have co-operated with the Americans???
I don't disagree that this is a possibility, but isn't it interesting that
Syria has evidently now delivered the actual corpse of the victim, which
proves that he did not die of natural causes as claimed by Yasir Arafat?
This appears to be a discretionary action on their part against the PLO.
Also, note that Syria didn't feel constrained from aiding the U. S. in
obtaining release of some of the Beirut hostages.
Anyway, I am not going to apologize for the anti-US behavior of Egypt, as
you have virtually done. If the Mubarak government feels that it cannot
act as the ally of the US that it is (receiving $2 billion in annual aid,
and relying on us to keep the Soviets out since 1971, not to mention
keeping Israeli troops out of Cairo in 1973) I am not going to help them
pursue a self-serving opportunistic agenda.