Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!orion.oac.uci.edu!tclock
From: tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock)
Subject: Re: Peace Talks Resume
Nntp-Posting-Host: orion.oac.uci.edu
Message-ID: <2BDE164C.26077@news.service.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 63
Date: 28 Apr 93 05:29:48 GMT
References: <1993Apr27.194346.8707@dazixco.ingr.com> <2BDD9DFC.13587@news.service.uci.edu> <392@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP>

In article<392@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP>ohayon@jcpltyo.JCPL.CO.JP(TsielOhayon)writes:
>In article <2BDD9DFC.13587@news.service.uci.edu> Tim Clock writes:
> 
>[TC] Do you, as I do, agree that this (sort) of "peace process" is needed?
>[TC] What about the particular points mentioned in the article? Is what
>[TC] Israel is (supposedly) going to propose "good"? Does it go too far?
>[TC] Not far enough?
>[TC] If you don't agree that a "peace process" is needed, what is?
>
>I personally think that a peace process is needed, since only through
>negotiations will the future generations be able to live in stability.
>Unfortunately not all think like this, we have cases like:
>	Anas Omran, Hamza Saleh, Jle, Mohammed Reza, Mehmed Abu-Abed, 
>Anwar Mohammed and others who think that JIHAD is the only solution. 
>
If we can't avoid throwing out gut-reactions to what we see as "extremist"
views here in the newsgroup, we're certainly not going to be any better at
it in the real world. Hey, it easy here. After reading the offending post, 
we can step back, take some deep breathing exercises, have a gallon of
ice cream (or sex, whichever calmsus), and reply in something other
than the usual king-of-the-hill mentality.  
>
>My view is that Israel has made more gestures towards its Arab foes than the
>opposite. What have the Sysrians given to us or proposed? What have the
>Palestinians proposed? If the Palestinians would just revoke or rewrite their 
>charter, or just condemn acts of Palestinian violence that would be a good
>start.

Perhaps, starting here with an immediate "accusation" is not a particularly
good way to generate open responses? How about explaining what you see as
being Israel's *real worries* and how they *need* to be addressed? Since
the "other side" sees Israel's "gestures" in a completely different light
than you do, perhaps "they" also have *real worries*. From their point
of view, what are they? How can those worries be addressed? 

>The Palestinians have all to gain from these negotiations. Its seems though
>that they are not strong enough to make decisions on their own and are
>plagued by internal strife, that is why we are not getting anywhere.
>Fundamentalism is slowly taking over in the territories, then it will be
>too late to discuss issues with the Palestinians since they will only
>vow for the destruction of Israel.
>
It is certainly much harder to "reach compromise" (or, even sit down
and talk with...) an other side which is fractured into several
different ideologies, each with its own set of "demands". While it is
up to "them" to generate unity on their side, is there anything that
Israel can do (without sacrificing its security, its position) to
encourage that unification along lines that Israel prefers?
>
>Arabs  must take example on Egypt. Egypt came to the bargaining table,
>got what it wanted from Israel and there is now peace and cooperation
>between the two countries. 
>The tougher you play ball with Israel the tougher Israel gets.
>
>Tsiel
>


--
Tim Clock                                   Ph.D./Graduate student
UCI  tel#: 714,8565361                      Department of Politics and Society
     fax#: 714,8568441                      University of California - Irvine
Home tel#: 714,8563446                      Irvine, CA 92717
