Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Islamic tolerance (is not the subject)
Message-ID: <1979@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 17:21:11 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1979
Posted: Thu Jan 23 17:21:11 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:44:54 EST
References: <63@ubc-vision.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 45

> > Israel views Iraq (a potentially powerful Arab country) as a greater enemy
> > in the long run than Iran, a non-Arab country which under the Shah had
> > friendly relations with Israel and was Israel's main oil supplier.  Israel
> > has always viewed the armies of the Arab states as the main threat to its
> > existence, not terrorism.  Israel would not like Iraq to win the war.
> > --
> > Bill Tanenbaum
>
> 1. Iran under Khomeini is very different from Iran under the shah. No matter
>    what  the state of the past relations between Iran and Israel, it doesn't
>    apply to the present day Iran.
Not necessarily.  First, Iran remains a non-Arab state.
Second, the current good services may be well-remembered in the future.
The future government need not to be Khomeinistic, and even Iran's
opposition does not Iraq to win.
> 2. It is Khomeini who has announced his intentions to liberate Palestine when
>    he gets Iraq out of the way not Saddaam Hosein. Do you have proof that he
>    intends to do otherwise?
The true situation is that nobody wishes any side of this conflict to
prevail.  The domination of either of those unsaviory regimes would
be very dangerous.  Iraq leaders dream about unification of the Golden
crescent: Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and oil-producing
Iranian Khuzestan.  A defeat of Iran would make it plausible.
> 3. Israel is militarily superior to the combined armies of *all* the Arab
>    countries. I don't believe that fear of a possible Iraqi victory would
>    convince Israel to arm the ayatollah.
Israel may be militarily superior to the combined armies of
*all* arab countries.  But only because those armies fear one
another more than Israel:  e.g. the Israeli occupation of Jordan
(or Syria etc.) is out of question, but Syria would gladly
swallow Jordan, and Iraq would gladly swallow Syria.

If this would not be the case, the multimilion force equipped in
some of the most modern weaponry (like planes from Saudi Arabia)
would conquer Israel within weeks.
> 4. I agree that terrorism does not threaten the existence of Israel. Is this
>    a good enough reason for Israel to arm the terrorists? What about all the
>    people who are killed by the terrorists?
Supplying spare parts for military aircrafts is not equivalent to
arming the terrorists.  Also, Abu Nidal used to be Iraq's protege.
To deal with nice guys only, Israel would need to relocate to Scandinavia.
It is not Israel's fault that not only her adversaries, but also
adversaries of adversaries support terrorist.
>                                                Farzin Mokhtarian
Piotr Berman