NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/mideast/23977

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 7.5 KB | 118 lines

Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!vmd.cso.uiuc.edu!DSHAL
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A point of view (Re:Torture in Israel)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: C.C.S.O.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:59:09 GMT
Lines: 107

As a new subscriber to electronic mail in general and talk.politics.mideast
in specific, I am both amused and dismayed by what I read. One noteworthy
assay (most can't even be called that) I read was by Harry Mamaysky who
relied to 'Torture in Israel' with a relatively balanced view and in many
ways reflects the views of my friends and myself. On the other hand, I
find tremendous amounts of hatred in the postings but more than that, I
find zealotism and fanaticism. This is the greatest source of war,
throughout human history - the unwillingness to bend not even a bit. And I
would like to concentrate on this point a bit more.
But first a basically relevant introduction of myself - 30, American-
Israeli (born here raised there) and army reservist with occupied territory
service experience.
The greatest problem facing the peace process in the ability or inability
of the sides negotiating said peace, to understand the other point of view.
In the opening talks, a 'wanted' poster of Shamir was lifted in good ol'
arab fashion to make a point. Not belittling their point (I'm no great
supporter of the Likud for those who have not yet figured that out...), is
that a  way to start talking peace? Of course I realize I'm inviting much
retaliation for using a single incidence, so I'll move on.
Israel has it's fair share of problems. Determining who is terrorist and
who isn't might be difficult as all palestinians (yes, there is such a group
of self proclaimed people) support such acts in one way or another. You
feel I'm exaggerating? Although I believe that all our neighbors and
occupees would like to live normal lives in which to raise their families
far from war, none would hesitate to 'push Israel into the sea', given the
opportunity. But Israel is here to stay, and as sure as a country for the
palestinians must arise one day, it would seem that all sides must sit
down and agree on the mode of transition to occur in the Middle East. And
it might as well be now rather than a few hundred dead later.
Over four hundred palestinians were deported by Israel's government into
a no-man's land in Lebanon. Actually it is Lebanon's land and our self
declared zone in the south is detrimental to the peace process but our
commitment to the safety of our northern settlements takes priority over
anything else. It is very simple, we are saving Israeli lives this way,
proven fact. If Lebanon were stronger and capable of controlling it's own
country and the warring factions within, Israel would evacuate the zone
immediately. No question. But Lebanon is weak and strife with terrorist
groups that control the southern areas *de facto*, leaving Israel no
alternative but to stay. So, a group of sick, tired, hungry *TERRORISTS*
are roaming the countryside and aren't allowed to return to Israel for two
years. Well, tough. Although not in support of such mass actions, it is
better than killing them, or locking them up for life in jail. It is also
better than the cards dealt the massacred Israelis. So what is fair? There
is no fair in such situations. The government obviously succumbed to
public outcry that this time retaliation must take place, which only
proves that Israel is not so hand heavy with terrorists as the world
believes.
Two more points: torture in Israel and the new country for palestinians.
I have served in the IDF and in the occupied territories and have never once
seen any abuse of locals. Yes the jails stink (I've been there and I know
why...) and I'm sure that beatings take place as described (in news articles
and books), but ladies and gentlemen, not everything written is the truth
and not ever soldier is a killer of children and a beater of women. I'm not,
and no one of my unit or any unit I've been in is, so already you count at
least a thousand good men (and a few women).
My biggest question is who leads a palestinian country. Personally, I think
the territories should be fenced off on our side (facing Israel), a country
declared and allow the people of palestine dictate their own future.
Sitting back and observing such a spectacle will be horrible because it
will involve much killing and deprivment of basic need and rights. Sounds
like the present complaints. So, let's return the occupied territories to
their past owners, the same countries that declared war on Israel and lost
their own war despite their overwhelming advantage. Egypt doesn't want
Gaza, Jordan has no interest what-so-ever in Judea and Samariya and only
Syria wants the Golan Heights. But what if the new country were to be in
the Golan Heights? Two points for you, Syria would drop it like a hot
potato. Because the fact is, nobody seems to like this group of people and
the only place in the middle east they receive any decent treatment is by
Israel. Just consider the medical treatment they receive (and please no
stupid rhetoric about soldiers sending them to the hospital in the first
place). It is a small example of the 'good', and there are many more.
So, for better or worse, a war took place, a small country won despite the
odds and took land in the outcome. Since then, much has changed and the
possibility of returning the occupied territories to their rightful
countries has long disappeared along with the rise of a group of people
now calling themselves palestinians, demanding it for themselves. As a
jew I feel for this group and wish to help them. As an Israeli, I fear their
motives and am suspicious of them but will concede a part of their
demands (i.e. a country) in return for recognition, a cease of terrorism and
peace. There are three ways two groups of people can live relative to each
other: together, against each other or side by side. The first two are
impossible anymore and realizing the third is now a function of talking
peace, despite terrorism, despite it's punishment or anything else not
pertaining directly to the talks themselves.
Of course to talk about Israel, it's history and neighbors demands more
than this but I felt someone not yet caught up in the heat of
talk.politics.mideast should write briefly on his views, just a regular
person who actually lives in Israel and knows how things look from sides
of the media. It no paradise as yet, but the near future holds a bright light
for all factions living in this disputed region. Please, be a bit more
optimistic.
And by the way, who is 'wayne mcguire'? what's your problem son? can't
you just say your piece simply so all can read and respond rather than use
slogans all the time. Such righteousness I've haven't seen from truly great
people, so who do you think you are. Try looking at both sides for a bit
(that is if your intelligent enough to do so). This is also true to many of
the pro-Israeli groups but I've noticed these to be much more even headed,
even when responding to you. Wayne, next your going to deny the holocaust
or try to compare the third reich to Israel. Don't because it's just not
there. Israeli's do go about carving Star's of David on the foreheads of
little girls.
Well' that's all. A bit sketchy and not well formed but I really don't spend
all that much time reading electronic news groups or writing commentary
(I study science) and probably won't have time to check responses for
some time, but will look for it someday.

David