Sinha/Feingold/Israel/Arafat/foolishness
Oded Feingold
------------------------------
Kindly desist from making deliberate truthless juxtapositions and
expect me to defend them. Israel owes its populace secure borders AND
deterrence (or revenge) when Israelis are attacked. I am not jackass
enough to claim Cyprus as part of Israel's borders. Don't put such
words in my mouth, creep!
My estimate: The Israeli public expected (demanded?) retribution
for the Yom Kipur killings in Cyprus. The government decided to impose
a high cost for such actions by the PLO. Can you spell "deterrence?"
> You see, you appear to be hiding behind a cloak of an
> eye-for-an-eye.
------------------------------
I don't "hide" behind anything, so I don't "see" that I "appear" to
do so. Read "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Sins" by Mark Twain before
patching together another sentence like that.
> Is Arafat not considered a moderate in his use of violence?
> Is this not why the PLF is not under his control?
------------------------------
Arafat's a chameleon coloring himself today's popular shade.
(That's no criticism.) Re PLF: I think he's more sophisticated than
they, and more responsive to civilians. That's why the latter isn't
under his control. The Syrians, Libyans and Soviets can offer more
compelling reasons. Arafat wouldn't mind building an independent
Palestinian nation, as long as he could run it. Since can only do so on
the ashes of a dismantled Israel, he's an enemy of Israeli Jews. Is
that supposed to be amazing or something?
The Palestinian struggles have been co-opted by nasty people,
including many Arab governments and the USSR: If Israel were nuked,
Arafat would still have no chance - not with the Syrians around.
Anyway, what should the Israelis care? They'd be as dead with the one
as the other.
>>> SOME Israeli's efforts to eradicate the world of
>>> Palestinians [Velu Sinha]
>> Irrelevant bullshit, in my opinion. [Feingold]
> Why is it that you have to use profanities when you do not
> agree with something? [Sinha]
------------------------------
IRRELEVANT: Only Palestinian military forces are in Tunis. That's
not "the world of Palestinians." Maybe not completely irrelevant - this
is the first time PLA forces are not intermingled with civilian
populations. A result of Israel's kickout order in Beirut - possibly
the only positive result.
Israel only attacks military targets. If civilians are there,
that's unfortunate, something which Arafat and others have exploited.
Even the larger case doesn't constitute "eradicating the world of
Palestinians," which Israel never attempted. Hence "bullshit."
PROFANITIES: A concise characterization of deliberate, destructive
lies. I LIKE profanities. ["If you have nothing nice to say, come and
sit by me." Alice Roosevelt Longworth.]
> Why is the attack on three Israeli's (where they Israeli, or
> just Jewish?) in Cyprus reason to go and attempt to dismantle
> the only semi-moderate leadership the palestinians have had
> in the last ~40 years?
------------------------------
They were _Israelis_, unlike Leon Klinghoffer (see below.)
"The only semi-moderate leadership" - they've had the same
leadership since 1968 (when Arafat succeeded Shukairy.) As far as the
Israelis are concerned, these guys send child-killers to Maalot and took
out the Israeli Olympic team in Munich. O, speak to me of moderation.
Dismantle: One doesn't "dismantle" anything except a cult of
personality by raiding a headqarters. The raid presumably caused
military discomfort, a reasonable thing to wish on one's enemies.
Reason: Israel let the PLO fighters go to Tunis WITH THEIR WEAPONS
in 1982 on the explicit condition that they launch no more terrorist
raids. The PLO reneged. Penalty for breach of contract. Maybe they
won't renege so fast again.
> [Re "raids timed to screw up Hussein's talks with Reagan."]
------------------------------
Just for fun, consider the possibility that Hussein, Reagan and
Arafat might be tempted to abrogate agreements with each other (to do
what, talk with the Israelis??) if the raid came afterward.
> As soon as one says anything bad about Jews, they are automatically
> anti-semites (or Jew Haters).
------------------------------
Isn't that what's meant by Anti-Semite? Someone who dislikes Jews
generically? The discussion is about possible Israeli misdeeds you
suddenly elide to worrying about "Jews believing they are God's gift to
humanity." Even if you're right it's irrelevant. Hiya, Raghu
Raghanuthan! You reading this??
You're a Jew-hater, son. Show the balls to admit it. Don Black did.
> I am only trying to say that many Israeli leaders seems
> to believe that if they keep beating on the Palestinians
> long enough, the problem will go away.
------------------------------
You are also saying that it's a significant problem that (lots of)
Jews "consider themselves God's gift to humanity." So you're a liar
too, hiding behind ostensible childish density. At least you could keep
your story consistent, sentence to sentence.
[Indian digressions]
>>> However, when any group is given the privilidge of independence,
>> Yes, "given." [Oaf flames for a while]
> You said it, I didn't.
------------------------------
Take two: {Enter sarcasm mode} Yes, "given." {Exit sarcasm mode}
> I don't happen to agree with your interpretation of what
> given means,
Argument by straw man disguised as obtuseness.
> but you are the one who is doing the name calling here.
Argument by feigned injured innocence. Thus you support "given?"
> India and Pakistan have maintained a reasonably quiet
> relationship over the past 10 years.
------------------------------
So have Israel and Egypt. That precedes by two years Egypt's
acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist. (Also Israel and
Jordan.) Do India and Pakistan have such a misunderstanding?
>>> it should be the DUTY of the peoples involved to negotiate a
>>> solution.
>> On whose terms? Yours?
> ...Some terms are better than no terms.
------------------------------
Some aren't.
If Israel and the PLO play a zero-sum game, negotiations have no
utility. [Schelling, T.C., _Strategy _of_ _Conflict_] Your terms, kid?
[The Yasir Arafat memorial page]
> Arafat has all but said that it is time for the PNC to be cahnged.
Then why hasn't he said it?
> Arafat seems to also realize that Israel is not going anaywhere
Perspicacity! Why does he only "seem" to realize it?
Of course, by asking the young ignoramus why Arafat doesn't come forward
and do the right thing, I AM BEING UNFAIR! There are several reasons
Arafat doesn't try to change the PNC or openly accept Israel's
existence: He'd be killed by ambitious Palestinians, or hit teams from
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran or maybe merely the KGB. If he weren't killed
he'd lose authority over various armed groups. Even if all the
Palestinians supported him and he weren't killed, no Arab countries
except maybe Egypt would support him with money or anything else,
certainly not territory. Lastly, the Israelis would never trust him and
never buy it. So why bother, except as a tactical move?
> ... time for the Israeli leadership to realize that the PLO is
> not going anywhere either.
------------------------------
Agreed. If you'd stuck to that I wouldn't have called you names.
But we're beyond such virginal relationships, as are Israel and her
neighbors.
> More name slinging, you and Martillo seem to really get into
> that, don't you?
------------------------------
What do you object to? Amigo, boychik, Syria, irredenta, geography?
> Large-scale wars is a euphimism, I admit.
------------------------------
"Euph_e_mism" means a substitution of socially acceptable words, as
in "lie" or perhaps "bovine manure" for "bullshit." "Euph_i_mism" is
your own creation - I infer it means "lie." Hence no euphemism.
> I see the IDF going and killing and destroying another city...
------------------------------
Tunis is destroyed?
> I also see the IDF rolling over Lebanon, in defensive moves, and
> blowing up reactors in Iraq in defensive moves.
------------------------------
Get a monocle: Rolling over Lebanon was not defensive, blowing up
the Baghdad reactor certainly was. So you're half right.
Coincidentally, the half that's right depends whether you're being
sarcastic, which I assume you are. When it comes to "given" you deny me
the privilege of sarcasm, here you arrogate it to yourself. You are a
sniveling hypocrite, Mr. Sinha.
> (BTW: The reactor in Iraq had been inspected by UN observers.
------------------------------
Untrue. For $15.00 cash or check, pointer their report.
Coincidentally, the Iraqi reactor was unique in the world - an
apparently civilian reactor that used 98% enriched fuel, ALREADY
weapons--grade. Its name is Osirak, it was made in France, there are
none like it anywhere. Had it gone online it would have permitted
direct diversion of fuel to nuclear weapons, bypassing all those
demanding enrichment processes. The Iraqis openly proposed to build a
bomb to flatten Israel. Years later, they start rebuilding the reactor
while embroiled in war with Iran. What do they do but reassure the
Iranians that they won't menace THEM with any bombs from the reactor --
it's intended for someone else. Give them credit for persistence!
[For people who get queasy that the French sold such a reactor to
Saddam Hussein's government, I offer my theory of French politics in a
filles-de-joie metaphor. By private mail.]
> Israel will not allow UN obserevers to inspect
> Israeli reactors. Who has what to hide from whom?)
------------------------------
Israel has to hide from the world the possibility that she can build
or has built nuclear weapons, and how many. Do a reality check, kid.
Wouldn't you do the same?
> The lower bound to large scale war is when there are no more
> countries which have war declared on Israel. Good enough for you?
------------------------------
Overjoyed. EVERY Arab nation extant in 1948 declared war with
Israel. None except Egypt have renounced that declaration. So
"large-scale war" will only end when either Israel or every Arab country
from Mauritania to Kuwait is wiped out. Which are you rooting for?
> (Oh yeah, I will append that with a statement which says
> that the PNC has been modified to remove the statements
> having to do with the destruction of Israel, and of
> Israeli's/Jews)
------------------------------
<1> Kindly pointer that revised PNC. <2> Can you spell "hidden
agenda?" <3> Can you imagine a significant portion of the Israeli
population believing that for a millisecond? <4> Can you imagine the
Syrians bypassing an opportunity to knock the Israelis off, no matter
what arrangement the Israelis and Palestinians reached?
>>> [Criticism of someone's anger at Arab applause.] <Sinha>
>> [Explanation that the PLO UN observer belittled Leon
>> Klinghoffer's death, suggesting Marilyn Klinghoffer
>> threw him overboard, and the applause came from the Arab
>> League UN representatives.] <Feingold>
> I was not aware that this is what the applause referred to...
------------------------------
Why didn't you do that research before you sent your flame?
THE CRUX
> Regardless of how naive you may believe I am, I do not see
> any talk from you of a solution.
------------------------------
I don't just think you're naive. You want to see Jews suffer.
My universe of prospective solutions is limited to those that will
not lead to destruction of Israel. They must integrate the political
forces in the area, ranging from Syrian expansionism to Soviet
opportunism to Libyan and Iranian (and Jewish) fundamentalism to oil
economics. They must not expect one party to take serious risks without
finding goodwill on the part of their negotiating partners, so they must
include mechanisms for developing such goodwill.
As it turns out, I think the place to start is the United States.
If we developed a real respect for human rights, and maintained it
through the strain of mediating among enemies, other countries could
learn to accept some risks on the strength of US guarantees.
In addition, I think someone owes the world community some
destabilization: The governments of Syria, Libya and Iran are gruesome,
and their continued existence an affront to civilization. If the US
could turn its attention to supporting democratic movements within those
countries, and perhaps nicely lop the heads off of Gaddafi, Assad and
Khomeini, there'd be hope of progress. [Of course, my hit list is
longer than that, and includes folks on the other side.]
The other element is time. People of Arafat's generation can't cut
a deal with Israel that represents a significant diminution of their
lot, in comparison with the good old days when Israel didn't exist. Nor
can Ariel Sharon, whose life consists of war with Arabs, suddenly accept
them as neighbors. Only their descendants can settle with each other
without feeling that they lost out in a personal (and lifelong) rivalry.
[For analogies, you might check out the old testament: The Jews wander
forty years in the desert before genociding the Canaanites: The
generation of slaves can hardly be expected to establish themselves as
landowners and bosses -- they're still looking for revenge. Maybe
Jericho quenches that thirst. Also, Moses dies without setting foot in
the Promised Land, though he can see it from a mountaintop: The
diaspora leader with indomitable will and inability to compromise is not
the right guy for setting up shop in a going concern.]
So, the bare-bones outline of my suggested solution is for the US
and other interested parties to put their own houses in order and
develop social justice at home, then try exporting it, meanwhile
hashashinating a few (or maybe many) obstructionists. Then they should
buy time with well-considered foreign aid, encouraging economic
development as well as democratic institutions. Sort of a Middle
Eastern Marshall Plan. Once people have a prosperity worth living for
(instead of merely dying for) there's a chance that Israel and the
surrounding countries will feel like opening trade relations and even
letting people move and establish citizenship where they will. That
assumes there will no longer be any refugee camps - such poverty pockets
are inconsonant with general prosperity, and would scotch any attempt to
develop political stability.
Such a plan is almost as naive as your own: Whereas you assume that
Arabs and Israelis can behave like reasonable human beings, I require
that the Americans also show sense and long-term (more than one
presidential erection) planning, as well as discover a belief in human
rights. But I know enough to despise everyone, whereas you merely hate
Jews, Mr. Sinha.
I'm tired of arguing with someone half my age, unburdened with facts
or experience digesting them. Next time, Mr. Sinha, you will sweeten
your bait with the products of some learning and thinking, or I won't
rise to it. [That may be what you want.]
--
Oded Feingold MIT AI Lab. 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139
OAF%O...@MIT-MC.ARPA {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf 617-253-8598