dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (03/21/88)
No Suicide for Israel
by A.M. Rosenthal, N.Y. Times, March 8/88
It happens to everybody from time to time. We believe certain things
about a matter of important controversy and we say them. But when we
hear the same points made by others, we become queasy and know
something is wrong or missing.
Many of us have been saying the same things about Israel: Israel
cannot go on forever being an occupying power. Jews must not break bones.
Israeli use of force against young Palestinians is costing her support
around the world. Israel must enter negotiations on Gaza and the West Bank.
Right, right. But sometimes when I hear or read these points, which
I have made myself, made over and over by others, I find myself deeply
uneasy. It is not because there is no validity in them, but because
so often they are presented empty of the historic realities that brought
about the crisis and must be understood to find a way out.
This is an attempt to set down the political, military and historic
truths that raise fears about the road that many American intellectuals,
journalists and senators are demanding Israel take.
Causes: The critics' implication is that the cause of the current
crisis is Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's opposition to an international
conference and his refusal to agree in advance to cede West Bank territory.
That is not true. The cause is 40 years of Arab refusal to accept the
existence of Israel, 40 years of furious hostility and military attempts
to destroy her.
You do not have to like Mr. Shamir to realize that if the Arabs
had accepted Israel in the beginning or for 20 years thereafter,
all of the West Bank and Gaza and other territory would today be
part of a Palestinian state.
If you believe that the very existence of Israel is anathema, you are right
to see her policies as the root cause of the Mideast ugliness.
Otherwise not.
Occupation: Some critics also act as if it were Israeli occupation
of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 that led to so many years of unrest
and skirmishing there.
This too is a historic distortion. It was the Arab countries that
seized Gaza and the West Bank, which were to be part of the Palestinian
state under the 1947 U.N. partition plan, and occupied them for 20 years --
not in peace but with constant harassment and attack against Israel.
Finally Israel struck back. Her unhappy occupation of the West Bank is a
result, not the cause, of aggression -- Arab aggression.
Negotiation: With whom and for what? The U.S. proposes an international
conference with the Big Five participating. Since Britain and France are
cool to Israel and the Soviet Union and China are hostile, the chicken is being
invited to negotiate under the sponsorship of four foxes and a lame dove.
To think the major powers would not pressure Israel for Arab advantage
is not only naive but black comedy.
It is not the Big Five Israel must live with, but the Palestinians, and
other Arabs. Which Arabs states have promised to negotiate directly with
Israel? None. Which Arab leaders are criticizing Palestinians sworn to
the elimination of Israel? Where are the "moderate" Palestinians who
can swerve the young men of Gaza and the West Bank away from seeking
Israel's death?
Stakes: Israel is fighting for survival. The Arab states are fighting out
of anti-Israel hatred and fear of the Palestinians. The young Palestinians are
fighting for a new Palestinian state because they hate the ruler of a present
state with a Palestinian majority: Jordan. They plan to eliminate
King Hussein one day and swallow Jordan as part of their own single Palestine.
As things stand, any ceded West Bank territory will become a de facto
state run by the P.L.O. and other Palestinians sworn to destroy Israel.
Those young Palestinians would not be hurling stones from the territory
but rockets.
Solutions: Open pressure on Israel to make concessions must be accompanied
by open pressure on the Arabs. Palestinians must accept totally and clearly
the right of Israel to live forever, secure and in peace. The U.S. and
the Arab leaders can achieve this and guarantee it, if we have
the will and they the courage.
Mr. Shamir may not promise in advance to cede "territory for peace".
That is what direct talks are for.
But the definition of peace cannot mean Palestinians continuing
war to the death. And they too must feel hard pressure to do some
ceding, specifically of their demand for another Palestinian state
in a region where one already exists and to negotiate in peaceful
stages for the eventual goal: a single Jordan-Palestine.
Americans have a right to criticize Israel. They have a right
to suggest solutions -- but not the suggestion of suicide.
(taken from a photocopy of an article from the N.Y. Times)
--
{ uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!daveray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (03/22/88)
In article <1988Mar20.223551.471@lsuc.uucp> dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) writes: >No Suicide for Israel > > by A.M. Rosenthal, N.Y. Times, March 8/88 > >...... >Causes: The critics' implication is that the cause of the current >crisis is Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's opposition to an international >conference and his refusal to agree in advance to cede West Bank territory. > >That is not true. The cause is 40 years of Arab refusal to accept the >existence of Israel, 40 years of furious hostility and military attempts >to destroy her. > Didn't the Arab nations have every right to refuse the acceptance of a hostile nation being dumped into their midst?? >You do not have to like Mr. Shamir to realize that if the Arabs >had accepted Israel in the beginning or for 20 years thereafter, >all of the West Bank and Gaza and other territory would today be >part of a Palestinian state. > >If you believe that the very existence of Israel is anathema, you are right >to see her policies as the root cause of the Mideast ugliness. >Otherwise not. > I believe it is as reasonable to expect the Arab nations to accept the existence of Israel, which was thrust upon them, as it would now be for Israel to accept its own suicide. Thus: stalemate? Perhaps. But isn't Israel the one who is in the better position to compromise. Israel is oppressing its neighbours to *maintain* a secure position...the neighbours have already *lost* their security!!!! It might be difficult in practical terms, but the only *justified* *military* action Israel can take, at this stage of a plethora of blunders, inconsistencies and injustices, is to defend itself from within its own borders. Period. Frankly it's when {the west, the media, etc, etc} *stop* complaining about the actions of Israel in the curent situation that Israel and those who support them should start worrying! What happened in the 30's when the world conveniently chose to look the other way? Would you not agree it is *always* better to shout "injustice", no matter what the detailed nuances might happened to currently be? I think there is a justified reluctance by many people to say anything, no matter how reasonable, that might lead to the accusation of being anti-semitic. Well let's be quite clear on the subject, being anti-Israel in the current situation has got nothing to do with being anti-semitic. If complaining about occupation soldiers beating and shooting civilian populations in an occupied land is considered by some to be anti-semitic then so be it. I can live with the label under those terms, just as a white British Canadian, I can live with being called anti-British, anti-Canadian, or anti-white under other circumstances. Ray Dunn. ..{philabs, mnetor, musocs}!micomvax!ray
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (03/28/88)
<Comments of a mildly pro-Israel guy follow> In article <948@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >Didn't the Arab nations have every right to refuse the acceptance of a >hostile nation being dumped into their midst?? Yes. But was Israel a hostile nation? I doubt it. The 1948 war came as a result of a concerted Arab assault. The 1967 war was a result of initial Arab attack. Same with the Yom Kippur war. >I believe it is as reasonable to expect the Arab nations to accept the >existence of Israel, which was thrust upon them, as it would now be for >Israel to accept its own suicide. Clearly this is a nonsensical parallel. The Arab nations are not committing suicide by officially accepting the existence of Israel. Israel already exists. Accepting that fact is a political problem, not a security problem. No Israeli government has suggested that the occupied territories be annexed to Israel proper, so there is clearly no validity to the claim that Israel is on some land-grabbing campaign. >Thus: stalemate? Perhaps. But isn't Israel the one who is in the better >position to compromise. Israel is oppressing its neighbours to *maintain* a >secure position...the neighbours have already *lost* their security!!!! This is clearly nonsense. Does Israel oppress Egypt? Negotiation has shown to be successful with this one Arab state, to both countries' benefits. Egypt gained back all the territory it lost. >It might be difficult in practical terms, but the only *justified* >*military* action Israel can take, at this stage of a plethora of blunders, >inconsistencies and injustices, is to defend itself from within its own >borders. Period. This is nonsense. There is plenty of precedent and scope in international law for a trans-border assault in hot pursuit of people firing guns at you. (Witness the recent Nicaraguan situation) The situation in Lebanon some years ago is similar. There was a substantial group of PLO people who took advantage of the power vacuum caused by the Labanese civil war to set up camp in southern Lebanon. These folk then used this as a base for attacking northern Israel. Clearly there was ample justification for Israel's northern invasion. And clearly once the job had been done, (and the power vacuum filled apprpriately) Israel left the area. >Frankly it's when {the west, the media, etc, etc} *stop* complaining about >the actions of Israel in the curent situation that Israel and those who >support them should start worrying! What happened in the 30's when the >world conveniently chose to look the other way? Would you not agree it is >*always* better to shout "injustice", no matter what the detailed nuances >might happened to currently be? I agree. But that doesn't mean that one should be foolish about it. Complain rationally and when it's justified. Reveal your hidden agenda. Use evidence. Do not lend too much weight to inferred intent. >Ray Dunn. ..{philabs, mnetor, musocs}!micomvax!ray -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (via watmath, ihnp4 or ubc-vision) University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !