Regional Arms Control: Regional Stability Unbalanced by New Deal: Mr. Siegel, I am indeed dedicated to the Palestinians and the ca

» Rafehh - Mr. Siegel, I am indeed dedicated to the Palestinians and the ca

Mr. Siegel, I am indeed dedicated to the Palestinians and the cause of justice in the Middle East. In fact it is very hard for me to understand why others are not! The Palestinian cause is a JUST one and is indeed a noble endeavor to pursue. As a Lebanese, I also witnessed first hand what Israel and its apologists call "purity of arm" that Israel’s army practice.

Mr. Siegel claim there are "several other inconsistencies" in my posting. This is strange because his first posting does not show one. Indeed while my posting dealt with his argument, Mr. Siegel continued to avoid answering any of my points.

Contrary to Mr Siegel posting, Dr. Smith is one of the most informative books about the Middle East and the Arab Israeli conflict and is used in many universities as a text book. If Mr. Siegel would like an exhaustive examination of the 1967 war he should read Donald Neff’s book "Warrior’s for Jerusalem" among others. Dr. Smith point about the military disparity between Egypt and Israel is attested to by people such as General Peled, member of the chief of staff of the Israeli army and Israeli General Ezer Weizmann.

His objectivity in his objection to any arm deals does not hold water. He dwells on Arab military purchases (especially Egypt and Syria) while ignoring those of Israel. In the same breath, is he ready to call US military aid to Israel a destabilizing force and would he be ready to call for its suspension.

Mr. Siegel avoids dealing with the fact that the Palestinians, driven from their land, denied the right to return home, had their land and homes expropriated, and tries to shift the issue toward the Palestinian minority inside Israel who succeeded in remaining there. Ironically, I have not even examined Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizenry. But since he opened the door, I shall be more than happy to enter it.

His article is disappointing and misleading. Firstly, the Arabs who are citizens of Israel do not have the same rights as those who are Jewish. They are discriminated against in society and by law.

After the 1947/48 war, a manageable minority of Palestinians in the order of 125,000 was all that was left in Palestine. The rest either fled for their lives or were driven out of their homes, never allowed to return again. This minority has and continues to suffer significant discrimination at the hand of Israeli government and the Israeli society in general. This can be seen from the pitiful allocations of funds to Palestinian municipalities compared to those of Israelis (in the order of 25%) and educational institutions. Also, the land base of this population has been largely expropriated for the EXCLUSIVE use of Jews. Palestinians were turned from farmers to workers, ironically many working for JEWS on the same expropriated land they previously owned. The Palestinians are denied the right to live or own land in 92% of Israel. This is only the tip of the iceberg and these are the NON-JEWISH citizens of Israel. Halahmi (Professor of History at Haifa University), in his book original sins, deals with some of the discriminatory policies that Israel subjects the Palestinians (THE ISRAELI CITIZENS that is) to. The Arabs that were left are a small minority of those who were driven out by Zionist forces. These are still denied the right to return home. This is known today as "ethnic cleansing", the same crime for which the international community wants to try the Serb leadership of.

It is indeed sad that Mr. Siegel blames the Palestinians for the discrimination they endure: a classic case of blaming the victim. The biggest crime of the Palestinians is that they EXIST.

Shelling by Syrians did indeed occur prior to the 1967 war but it was sporadic, relatively inconsequential and caused by Israel’s repeated and increasingly serious violations of the 1949 armistice agreement with Syria. These included continuous armed encroachments on the demilitarized zones and the destruction of three Palestinian villages as well as the forced eviction of their 2000 inhabitants. Israel also violated the armistice by diverting the Jordan river in the DMZ (which led to a temporary suspension in US aid by the Eisenhower administration), commenced the draining the marches of Lake Huleh, and attempting to prevent Palestinians and Syrians from fishing in lake Taberius. During the harassment, casualties occurred on both sides, but those of Syrians far exceeded those of Israelis. Indeed General Von Horn (who served with the United Nations at the time) wrote in his memoirs that "it was unlikely [that the Syrian shelling would have occurred] had it not been for Israeli provocation" and he also documented Israel’s deliberate encroachments on the DMZ. His views were also upheld by other UN observers at the time.

Israel’s reluctance to return the Golan heights which Syria rightfully insists on for a full peace has nothing to do with Syrian shelling prior to the 1967 war or present security concerns, it has everything to do with Zionist expansionism and retention of the rich farmlands and water resources of the area. Returning the heights to Syria will not jeopardize Israel’s security. The heights return will result in a formal peace treaty.

While it is true that the military high ground provide an army with an advantage, it is also true that it is far important to have the superior armed forces. Israel has supremacy over the air which is effectively the highest ground possible. Also, as Israel proved in 1967, it can easily defeat and conquer the heights. Again, while controlling the heights has strategic value, it is far more important to Syria than it is to Israel. A study of the map and terrain of the region points to the absolute vulnerability of Damascus. Nonetheless, this is totally immaterial since the Golan is Syrian land and should by INTERNATIONAL LAW be returned to Syria. NO PEACE can last without it. Also whatever areas of understanding between the former labor government and Israel leaked out pointed to security arrangement between the two countries.

And contrary to Siegel claim, Israel committed offensive actions, not to protect itself but to expand and to realize the Zionist vision of greater Israel. This include the conquest of Jerusalem which was and still seen by many Zionists as the ultimate prize. Again, if Israel committed offensive actions to protect itself, then why the expropriations, the expulsions, the annexations and the settlements.

Mr. Siegel claim that Israel is the most scrutinized country in the World may well be correct but it is also true that despite countless resolutions and reports condemning it for massive (yes MASSIVE. I call massacres, expulsions, expropriations, settlements, massive arrests without trials, court-sanctioned and non-sanctioned torture MASSIVE!!!!) human rights violations, Israel has not been brought to task. The expulsions of Millions of Palestinians stands, the expropriation of huge tracts of their lands stands, the occupation stands, the settlements stands, the conquest stands. For a very long time the media in North America have been silent to the suffering of Palestinians. This started to considerably change during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Mr. Siegel presentation of the situation in Lebanon is also misleading. The resistance in Lebanon to Israeli occupation is there, not because the Golan is occupied, it is because Southern Lebanon is occupied. The resistance is formed by the courageous sons and daughters of Lebanon who are struggling to save their country from a brutal occupation. It is also true that Syria supports this struggle. But this struggle will continue with or without the support of Syria, the same way that the French resistance fought the Nazis in second World war.

His claim that Syria has not been an honest broker is correct. Syria is not a broker. It is a party to the negotiation. Syria has respected all of its commitment and history points that it will continue to do so. This, unfortunately, cannot be said of Israel. Syria has negotiated with Israel in good faith. Their line has always been clear to anyone that cares to listen: Total peace for total withdrawal. The Golan is Syrian, it will remain Syrian, it will return to Syria. It is the choice of Israel to decide how: by peace with security arrangement or by war!!! This is a right that any country in the world exercise to protect its territorial integrity and is well within international law. The Labor government understood that!! One can only hope that Likud will come to understand it too.

One of the inconsistency (indeed the only one) he claim to have found is that I stated that Syria does not have ballistic missiles. Indeed, I have said ADVANCED ballistic missiles (The scuds are missiles with primitive delivery systems). Nonetheless, I checked the site you supplied. The only information I found is listed below and does not classify the Scuds as a ballistic missiles. (SAMs are on the other hand anti-aircraft missiles and are purely defensive and yes any weapon can be deployed in an offensive manner, even a sling):

Scud-B ----- Russia. 8K14, R-17, R-300, SS-1c. Soviet-developed 300 km range tactical SSM that first entered service in 1955.386 The Scud-B was produced by the Makeyev design bureau.387 See also Scud-B (DPRK). [Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, Georgia, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Libya, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Syria, Ukraine, Vietnam, Yemen]388

Scud-C ----- Scud Mod C. DPRK improved Scud-B missile. The Scud C is liquid-fueled.389 (Note: the Soviet Union also had a missile called the Scud-C, but it was never deployed). [Iran, North Korea, Syria]

On the other hand the Jericho 2 is advanced ballistic missile capable of delivering a 1000 Kg (including a nuclear bomb) 1,500 km.

-- posted by Rafehh