| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1186.1 | The can't have their cake and eat it | GOOEY::GVRIEL::SCHOELLER | Schoeller - Failed Xperiment | Tue Mar 17 1992 19:15 | 14 |
| I am not normally one to be overly negative about Israel's policies. However,
this is one in which I think that Israel has been dead wrong. If the territories
are indeed part of Israel, as the right wing would like to claim, then Israel
should get it over with and annex them, giving the residents the choice to either
become citizens or leave. If the territories are a negotiable part of some Arab
country (possibly an independent Palestine), then Israel has no justification for
building settlements there. In which case, all settlements should cease.
For the longest time, the Israeli government has been trying to have it both ways.
They don't want the residents as citizens but they do want the land. It should
be no surprise that the US, which is trying to maintain friendly relations on
both sides should apply pressure on Israel on this point.
Gav
|
| 1186.2 | Annexation is a red herring here | SMF2::GOYKHMAN | | Tue Mar 17 1992 19:43 | 20 |
| I must disagree with .1 The territories are not either a part of
Israel or a part of "some Arab country". Their disposition has not been
resolved, they are legally a part of no country. Jordanian citizens as
well as Israeli citizens live there, mostly in separate communities.
Both segments of the population are building houses, both want
sovereign control over the whole area in dispute.
Outright annexation didn't bring President Bush to treat Jerusalem
or Golan Heights any different from Hebron or Gaza. Annexation at this
point would only serve to increase the pressure on Israel, with the
origins of said pressure having nothing to do with settlements at all.
I think the settlements are only a fulcrum point - next would come
Jerusalem, Golan Heights, "limited right of return", nuclear
inspections, and so on. The list of would-be concessions Bush and Baker
would like to extract is essentially endless. Give in now, and lose all
of it, bit by bit. I am glad they are withdrawing the request - it's
the Administration that looks miserly and biased now. The only worry
is, B&B will surely continue the bloodletting with pressure on the
"regular" aid package, media leaks, and so on.
DG
|
| 1186.3 | | GOOEY::GVRIEL::SCHOELLER | Schoeller - Failed Xperiment | Tue Mar 17 1992 19:52 | 13 |
| > Their disposition has not been
> resolved, they are legally a part of no country. Jordanian citizens as
Ah, but the Likud keeps stating that they are and will remain a part of Israel.
If they really mean it, then get it over with. If they don't and it's open for
negotiation, then what right do they have to finance settlement there?
Assuming this is still unresolved territory, the Israeli government could
legititmately allow settlement, without actively promoting it. That is, if a
private individual or group wished to buy land and settle, great. But no
government assistance.
Gav
|
| 1186.4 | The more they give in, the more pressure is applied | SMF2::GOYKHMAN | | Tue Mar 17 1992 20:02 | 13 |
| Both governments, as well as the PLO and other Arab interests
finance settlement there. In that sense, if one side were to stop
building unilaterally, or even to treat the area differently from the
current status quo, the balance of contention would be disrupted.
In fact, that's exactly why the issue is such a big deal right now.
Annexation itself, on the other hand, is not very meaningful, given the
examples of Jerusalem and the Golan.
The point is, there is no obvious behaviour that would both serve
Israel's goals and appease the current Administration. Sooner or later,
you find yourself in the corner, no matter how much you fight, or try
to cooperate, or explain yourself...
DG
|
| 1186.5 | -< The more they give in, the more pressure is applied >Peace is still far away ... | DSSDEV::TENENBAUM | | Thu Mar 19 1992 19:07 | 37 |
| I'd like to express my support of .4. The problem of settlements is not
a problem of justice, balance, etc. The nature of USA/Israel relations
seems to be fundamentally changed. After collapse of USSR and Gulf War
the value of Israel as a necessary strategic asset for USA is greatly
diminished. A war against Iraq did not become a war against all Arabs -
thanks to Egypt/Syrian support of Desert Storm.
Egypt's and Syria's participation in war was quite essential as a political
cover for USA.
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states provided all necessary logistic
support and a lot of money. So, some pro-Arab tilt in USA policy was
- more or less - inevitable.
Still, I believe that American concessions to Arab demands are wrong.
They solve nothing - historically, in Arab/Israel conflict, the Arab
side rejected all reasonable solutions or any proposed compromises.
As far as Israel is concerned, giving up the settlement issue would lead
to demands to return to pre-1967 borders, including East Jerusalem.
Arab side has no real incentives to make a peace with Israel, with only
exeption for Syria - they want to have Golans back. However, even Syria
can not agree on real peace, it would threaten Alawit domination in Syrian
society.
Unfortunately, too many groups in Arab world can
capitalize on the issue of "...selling the legitimate rights of
Palestinians, giving up the Holy Land, etc ...".
And I don't think that latest moves of USA current Adfministration
give Israel the feeling of confidence. Quite opposite, I'd suppose.
I can not imagine any Israelian government which would believe now in
any USA's garanties of Israel's security.
So, a reasonable strategy for Israel looks like this : we have to fight
anyway, no concessions can help us to avoid it, and, if so, we'd better
fight - "...here and now ...", than - later, and, quite probably,
in Jerusalem.
|
| 1186.6 | | SAINT::STCLAIR | | Thu Mar 19 1992 20:52 | 12 |
| re .2
" Jordanian citizens as
well as Israeli citizens live there, mostly in separate communities.
Both segments of the population are building houses, both want
sovereign control over the whole area in dispute."
I have seen nothing in tje local press regarding your comment that
both segments are building there. Could you expand on the level of
building? Are both building programs proportionate? Has there been
U.S. aide or loan guarantees made to assist Jordan?
|
| 1186.7 | Joran, Saudi Arabia, PLO, Gulf states - all finance it | SMF2::GOYKHMAN | | Fri Mar 20 1992 19:37 | 9 |
| I've seen many references to the Arab building in the papers
lately. I remember a figure of 600% of Jewish building in the West Bank
currently - that's 6 times as much construction at the same time. No
complaints are heard from the Administration, so it's not a "hot issue"
in the media. Overall, the Arab population growth in the West Bank has
been much much greater than the Jewish influx, from 1967 and until the
last year or so.
DG
|