Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Terrorism Inc.
Message-ID: <866@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 10:12:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.866
Posted: Tue Oct 22 10:12:53 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 12:16:07 EDT
References: <487@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP> <14@andromeda.UUCP> <511@idec.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Distribution: net
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 43
Summary: military action is justifiable

In article <511@idec.UUCP> alaa@idec.UUCP (Alaa Zeineldine) writes:
>>But how can you call the Israeli airstrike of Tunis terrorism? It has...
>
>What would you call a millitary action taken by a state in another country
>where it has neither jurisdiction nor permission? 

Huh? In time of war, no country ever asks about "jurisdiction"
or "permission" to attack another. Israel is in a state of war,
and will continue to be until Arab countries and the PLO are
prepared to stop seeking Israel's destruction.

>>PLO strong-holds (not Palestinian civilians mind you...
>
>Once they've been driven out of their homes, from their refugee camps and 
>from their second refugee camps!

Driven out of their homes? The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs
who left Israel in 1948 did so at the request of their Arab brethren,
who were going to "push the Jews into the sea". Perhaps those same
Arab brethren, with their millions upon millions of square miles
of land, could find room to absorb a few hundred thousand refugees.

>If we set our mind back to the Beirut seige of 1982, we may remember
>that when Tunisia agreed to accept parts of the PLO, it was part of an
>agreement to defuse an explosive situation which would have otherwise
>ended in a bloody battle; when this agreement was reached many people
>around the world (no doubt including many Israelis) sighed a deep sigh
>of relief. This was an agreement that would not have been implemented
>without Israel's consent, and one in which America was a principle
>party.

Had Tunisia continued merely to habour the PLO as a political
entity, that would be one thing. But if the PLO headquarters was
being used to plan and direct terrorist and guerrilla attacks, respectively
against Israeli civilians and the Israeli military (not to mention
against Jews elsewhere), that is quite another. Prime Minister
Peres has stated that Israel has incontrovertible and absolute
proof that such was the case.

Dave Sherman
Toronto
-- 
{  ihnp4!utzoo  pesnta  utcs  hcr  decvax!utcsri  }  !lsuc!dave