Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watlion.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!watnot!watlion!drsimon
From: drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Middle East settlment.
Message-ID: <7550@watlion.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Feb-86 19:41:44 EST
Article-I.D.: watlion.7550
Posted: Wed Feb  5 19:41:44 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 21:52:41 EST
References: <132@mit-vax.UUCP> <584@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 110

In a delightful departure from discussing whether all Israelis eat babies
for breakfast, Mr. Aouriri writes:

(of Israeli "occupied territories" (I forget just which territiories he 
includes here))
> 
> Those territories should be handed over
> to a duly recognized palestinian authority. 
>
Name five "duly recognized Palestinian authorities".  Name even one.  You'd
find it easier to do the first, because there are myriad such groups, 
all of which are duly recognized by someone or other (usually the nation(s)
which vest them with "authority" in the form of guns and money), and 
none of which is Palestinian in the sense of wishing to represent the 
Palestinians in a democratic way.  All of them are opposed to peace except
through violent victory against Israel.

When a real authority appears, I am 100% confident that the Israelis
will negotiate with it.  As it stands, however, Palestinians are 
routinely blown up and shot by the more radical groups for proposing just
such a "duly recognized authority" negotiating with Israel (actually, not
so routinely anymore--people learn when to keep their mouths shut).
> 
> Compare this with the actual situation in Israel
> whete only judaism is recognized (I mean , Israel is NOT A SECULAR
> STATE). 

Israel is not a completely secular state.  Nevertheless, lots of religions
are fully recognized.  They perform marriages, control their own holy sites,
and are treated with appropriate respect by the government.

Compare this with several Islamic states which refuse to recognize other
religions, and/or persecute their adherents.  Perhaps they, too, failed
to make the above distinction...

> 
> Note that there are ways around this. For example, all UN
> resolutions are accepted by the PLO, including resolutions
> 338 and 242 which unequivocally recognize and mention Israel
> as a sovereign state.   

So the PLO recognizes Israel?  News to me.  Nice to hear, though.

Actually, the PLO has never accepted resolutions 242 and 338, and you know it.

> I mention it because the INTENTION of ISRAEL in 1956 was to occupy
> and/or annex more arab lands. Otherwise, why did Israel join France
> and England in their military expedition against Egypt in 1956 ? 
>
Well, if you must know, the real reason that Israel joined France and 
England in their military expedition against Egypt in 1956 was roughly
identical to Britain's and France's reason for launching it: to topple Nasser.
Nasser did not only annex the Suez Canal in 1956; he also militarized the
Sinai (which borders Israel) and blockaded the Strait of Tiran, Israel's
only sea route to the south.  All three involved parties clearly believed that
their intervention would lead to Nasser's downfall, and that whoever replaced
him would be less belligerent. 

As for the "annex more Arab lands" business, Israel had a golden opportunity
to do just that in 1967, when she recaptured the very same stretch of
land--the Sinai peninsula.  Instead, Israel returned same to Egypt in 
exchange for--a peace treaty.  Sounds pretty greedy to me.
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is certainly not part of Israel as it is specified in the
> UN partition resolution. It was part of Jordan. Therefore,
> Jordan or a palestinian state should be the "owner" of that city
> which is holy for Muslims, Christians and Jews. 
> 
Yuk, yuk, yuk!  Good joke, this.

Surely a man as familiar as you with Middle Eastern history (I assume you
are well acquainted with the facts; how else could you presume to hold
forth so prolifically and so confidently on the net concerning this very
subject?) must know that the original UN partition plan called for Jerusalem
to be an "international city", NOT a part of Jordan.  In fact, Jordan wasn't 
supposed to be anywhere NEAR Jerusalem according to the partition plan.
King Abdullah of Jordan saw things differently, however, and promptly
annexed most of the territory of the proposed Palestinian state the moment
the plan was supposed to take effect.  He also snatched about half of 
Jerusalem at the same time, including that part (the old city) which contains
all the holy sites which were supposed to remain international (in order
to maintain the universal access that Jordan prevented during its period of 
rule over the city).

> 
> Historically, three main elements created Israel:
> 1- The Balfour declaration (in 1918, I think!).
> 2- The UN resolution in 1947-48.
> 3- The european jewish zionists, after the nazi holocaust in
>    Europe during WW2. Some might even add that Hitler helped 
>    them (Because without Hitler's crazy dream and holocaust,
>    the european zionists and jews would never leave Europe
>    for the Middle East!).  

Interesting list.  There are quite a few omissions, of course--no country
can be created by such a flimsy collection of quasi-legal documents and
hapless refugees--Uh, how WERE you planning to establish a Palestinian state,
again?

By the way, if you want flimsy excuses for statehood, try any of Israel's
neighbours, whose borders were all arbitrarily drawn up by whimsical and/or
politically shrewd colonial powers.  Jordan, for instance, was a present to
the Hashemite royal family.

> 
> CHEDLEY AOURIRI, ITT-ATC, Shelton, CT.
> ....ittatc!ittvax!aouriri

Daniel R. Simon