Regional Arms Control: Regional Stability Unbalanced by New Deal: Mr. Hulays, I applaud your dedication to this topic, but there a

» Lawhawk - Mr. Hulays, I applaud your dedication to this topic, but there a

Mr. Hulays, I applaud your dedication to this topic, but there are a few things that should be cleared up. There are as many, if not more scholars who will say that the 1967 war was one of pre-emptive attack. I suggest reading Steven Spiegel's The Other Arab-Israeli War. It contains information about the war that aren't found elsewhere. You may also want to read William Quandt's Peace Process. These two books look at the entire history of the conflict and the interaction between the United States and the Middle East as well as the interplay of all countries in the region.

Dr. Smith's book Palestine and the Arab-Israeli War is in fact only a cursory examination of the conflict and glosses over many areas, especially the US/Israel connection. It is also worth noting that Dr. Smith was not privy to the information found in Spiegel's and Quandt's book.

As to your second point, please read my articles carefully. I believe I stated that any arms deals in the region, from the reported 800 million Syrian deal - this is only a report that I haven't confirmed, is inherently destabilizing on the region.

Israel's wars have never been a one on one affair other than the constant border skirmishes between Israel and Egypt. I have addressed the issue of Lebanon elsewhere, but it still remains that Israel is considered the mortal enemy of Iraq (who has weapons of mass destruction), Iran (who keeps trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction), Syria - who used the Golan Heights as a launching point for numerous missile attacks prior to 1967. Any military strategist will say that having the high point on any battlefield is the key to success.

My opinion regarding the status of the Golan Heights does not stand for anything other than an honest rendering of peace in the region between Syria and Israel. Syria hasn't proven that it can be an honest broker in the peace process. I'm sorry, but using proxy armies in Lebanon to force Israel to the bargaining table doesn't cut it for me.

Israel has committed some human rights violations as you suggest, but not nearly on the scale that you portray. Israel is the most scrutinized country in the world. Its actions are watched by more people than any other, potentially including the United States. This distorts the reality of the situation. Yes, Israel has a stronger military, a stronger economy, and has committed offensive actions. Is it wrong to protect your country from aggressors? I think not.

Your claims of Israel's treatment of people living within the country are also misstated. Israel extended citizenship to all peoples living within the physical boundaries of Israel (excluding Gaza and West Bank). Most Muslim Arabs chose not to become citizens, thereby relegating themselves to second class citizens by choice. Druze Christians - ARABS largely became citizens. They weren't forced to become citizens; they accepted the new reality.

The idea that Israel is an imperialist state is also misleading. Israel had the opportunity to preempt the attack in 1973, but was warned by Henry Kissinger not to do so, or risk appearing the aggressor once again. In doing so, Kissinger utilized realpolitik and balanced the parties against each other so that it would work out in the United States' interest.

Michael Siegel Mid-East Politics and Culture

-- posted by Lawhawk