Conference taveng::bagels

    Lovely.  And I suppose you'd also suggest that if Islamic Jihad
    releases the American hostages held in Lebanon, we could then work
    towards having Israel taken over by the Ayatollah?

    
    	My proposal has merit because without Jews in Russia the West
    would not need to worry about Russia. Russia would decline quite
    rapidly.I do not see Jews in Russia as hostages.
    
    	What has my original statement have to do with the Arabs and
    Moslems.

    I don't see them as hostages per say, but your proposal seems to
    me to make them into hostages; IE:  If you release the Jews, we
    will then work towards your goals.  I find it a rather distasteful
    way to formulate policy towards the USSR.  What does 'Star Wars'
    or how many weapons we have aimed at the USSR (or visa-versa) have
    to do with the USSR not allowing Jews to emigrate?

 
RE: .0
    
>    	Let all the Jews in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block
>   countries leave and we Jews of the Western countries will work with
>   our governments to stop the Star Wars initiative and to also reduce
>   the quantity of nuclear arms aimed at the Soviet Union.
    
    	
	One has absolutely nothing to do with the other !

	Do me a favor, Henceforth, please use 'I' not 'we' as I
	did not give you permision to include me.    

David

    The point is that we were the hostages in Russia.  At least we felt
    that way when we were waiting for the permission to leave.  Just 
    remember for a second a Jackson-Vanick (sp?) amendment
    for the resolution of granting the USSR the status of the most
    favorable partner (or something like that).  It was exactly a hostage
    negotiation.  "You give us Jews, we will give you grain."  However
    humanistic it sounded, and indeed it was, though a few thousand
    Jews were let go, when some other considerations prevailed, the
    Soviet government stopped doing this.
    
    We may trade a few more Jews for removal of our defenses in Europe.
    We may stop SDI for some other favor from the Soviets.  Then we
    will demolish our fleets for the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan.
    Then what?
    
    I have no better dream then seeing my friends and relatives coming
    here from Russia, but not at any price.
    
    Leo

    RE. 4
    I don't mind if I'm included along with Arnie, so "we" is just fine.
    I really don't necessarily agree with the proposition presented,
    but it's worth more than obnoxious rejection.  Like it or not
    international, and even national, politics are played that way every
    day.  
    
    BTW.  Can anyone imagine what the Israelis are going to get out
    of reopening relations with the USSR?  The Soviets get an entry
    into the peace process, but what's on the other side?  Maybe increased
    immigration which Israel needs so badly?  Hum, what a concept! 
    It could be, it happens every day.
    

     re .6:
     
     > Can anyone imagine what the Israelis are going to get out
     > of reopening relations with the USSR?  
     
     Yes.  They might be able to find a means whereby the Israelis and the
     rest of the world can live together peaceably and normally.  The
     Russians are not going to disappear tomorrow, neither are the Arab
     states, and neither are other Third World countries.  Given that
     set of circumstances, I would expect that it's better to find a
     way to exist together peaceably than to exist together contentiously.
     
     --Mr Topaz

    RE .6:
    
    	While you can't say that the USSR has the best intentions for
    what it would do in the peace process remember that it hasn't been
    easy to get their grips into and hold onto Arab lands. The Soviet
    system will not allow organized religon that interfers with the
    State. That is exactly what ISLAM is. They won't tolerate it and
    the Arabs won't give it up. Stalmate. The USSR needs to get the
    following done. First stop all the fighting between the Arabs, since
    they can't go after the weak link cause they will all rally behind
    each other to fight off the infidels before going back to killing
    each other. Second stop the Arabs from fighting Israel, because
    first Israel would win, and they have no compunction from dropping
    a bomb on the oil fields if they are about to loose. And that is
    what the USSR wants, Oil, Domination etc and they can't get that
    if the fields are radioactive. 
    
    	So what will happen? You could see a genuine peace movement
    from the USSR aimed at first stopping hostilities, second disarmament,
    third after a couple of years either a USSR advance southward taking
    over the IRAQ/IRAN/SAUDIA oil fields and the Lebanon/Israel Med
    coast and the Suez canal (proably before the US can act) causing
    a new World War (probably conventional since neither side can afford
    to 1) blow up the oil and 2) won't blow up nonfighting civilian
    populations. Or the USSR could keep up the 'friendly neighbor' policy
    until they can disarm the US and Europe also then strike. 
    
    	I'm not a war monger and I hope that something like this won't
    happen but it could be a reality in the next 20 years if there isn't
    some alternate form of fuel found. It is probably best for everyone
    that Iraq/Iran are fighting and that the rest of the middle east
    is heavily armed because that keeps the USSR out. They can supply
    arms and get ready for the 'blitzkreg' but it can't happen as long
    as 'those crazy Arabs' are willing to die for their desert (oil)
    and their ideals (this is the basic problem that Israel faces).
    If the USSR can disarm the area they will move in, They need peace
    look at what is happening in Afganistan now with a relitivly peaceful
    and relitivly unarmed Moslem/Hindu country. Several years of constant
    gorillia fighting and a basicly loosing battle costing many lives
    and a lot of money to keep a relitivly small parcal of land secure.
    (of course the USSR needs this as they have such a huge military
    it is better to put them someplace out away from the heart of russia
    or there may be a coupe). 
    

re: .6
    
>    BTW.  Can anyone imagine what the Israelis are going to get out
>    of reopening relations with the USSR?  The Soviets get an entry
>    into the peace process, but what's on the other side?  Maybe increased
>    immigration which Israel needs so badly?  Hum, what a concept! 
>    It could be, it happens every day.
    
I have a somewhat different cut at this:  One reason that the USSR would
want to open diplomatic relations with Israel is to defuse the pressure
the US puts on them re: the Soviet Jews.

That is -- USSR and Israel exchange ambassadors.  US protests to USSR
on Soviet Jewish issues.  USSR tells US to "go away, we're already
working this issue diplomatically with Israel. Get out. None of your
business."

/don feinberg

    Natan(not Anatoly anymore)Scharansky made the argument that renewal
    of diplomatic relations with the Soviets will not increase immigration
    any.  He's probably right, but he doesn't understand an important
    point - Israel works on two plains, one as the Jewish state with
    strong ties to the Jewish communities throughout the world, and
    the other as a sovereign state.
    
    In it's role as a sovereign state it has to try to assert itself
    in diplomatic circles.  When there is a lack of diplomatic relations,
    then this can't be achieved.  Reestablishing relations with the
    USSR, the world's second superpower, has been a goal of many Israeli
    governments, even Begin's, but they have been waiting for the Soviets
    to make the first move.  This policy has much more to do with the
    overall political picture in the Middle East, and is only abstractly
    connected to the situation of Soviet Jews.
    
    Personally I think this is justified, and having an Israeli presence
    in the Soviet Union has to have at least a minimal benefit to Soviet
    Jews.
    
    David
    

Without answering the original question,

[1] >   Natan(not Anatoly anymore)Scharansky made the argument that renewal
    >   of diplomatic relations with the Soviets will not increase immigration
    >   any.  He's probably right, but he doesn't understand an important
    >   point - Israel works on two plains, one as the Jewish state with
    >   strong ties to the Jewish communities throughout the world, and
    >   the other as a sovereign state.

    I believe he does understand. He looks very open-minded to me and has
    already lived long enough here to understand what's going on.
    
[2] Since these notes are not being encrypted (probably), I think you don't
    have to worry about sending them to the Russians :-)

Nitsan.

RE:

>     re .6:
>     > Can anyone imagine what the Israelis are going to get out
>     > of reopening relations with the USSR?  
     
>     Yes.  They might be able to find a means whereby the Israelis and the
>     rest of the world can live together peaceably and normally.  The
>     Russians are not going to disappear tomorrow, neither are the Arab
>     states, and neither are other Third World countries.  Given that
>     set of circumstances, I would expect that it's better to find a
>     way to exist together peaceably than to exist together contentiously.

    This is the typical naive attitude that causes repeats of shows
    like Phil Donahue.

    How do you peacefully co-exist with a government that does
    not allow freedom of religion ?  The ways fo the Soviet Government
    are so foreign and benign to us that it is not possible to
    negotiate with them due to the fact that we are operating
    on  two DIFFERENT basis of morality and ethical practices.

    A certain Greek myth comes to mind.

     
     re .12:
     
     I'm having trouble making heads or tails out of your note -- would
     you mind clarifying a few things:
     
     - What does this mean: "The ways [of] the Soviet Government
       are so foreign and benign to us..."  ????
     
     - "it is not possible to negotiate with them due to the fact that we
        are operating on  two DIFFERENT basis of morality and ethical
        practices."  -- First, is it right to assume that "we" refers
        to the Israeli government?  Second, are you advocating that
        any government that thinks it has different morals and ethics
        from that of the USSR break off diplomatic relations with the USSR?

     - What Greek myth?
     
     --Mr Topaz
     

	Different Morality/Ethics:

	    What WE belive (WE = American/Israeli take your pick)
    to be 'right' in regards to civil rights of individuals is vastly
    different from what the Soviet Government views as necessary
    freedoms.

	No I am not suggesting that 'we' break off relations, just
    to not view the Soviet Government as holding the same Moral views
    as we do.  That is a grave error.

    If there are no negotiations there is no exchange of viewpoints,
    ideas, feelings, wishes, desires, truths, falsehoods, emotions, 
    wants, expectations, etc. It is only and I mean ***ONLY** through
    two-way communications that differences can aired, discussed,
    negotiated, changed, resolved, etc. 
    
    This is true for marriages, friends, lovers, children-parents,
    supervisors-supervisees, and countries. 
    
    If there is no communication, how can you possible expect the other
    party to know your expectatations? How can you know theirs? How can 
    you expect any change? 
    
    Communication can be difficult, painful, frustrating, non-fruitful,
    etc. But communication is what sets man apart from the rest of the
    animals. I'd much rather negotiate with the Soviets about arms control,
    civil rights, and anything else than sit there dumbly and blindly.
    
    -bs

Re:  .14

This is absolutely correct:  The very idea of a fair exchange means 
completely different thing for Western and Soviet mentality.  And in 
general the moral values are world apart.  In the USSR human life, 
dignity, rights, etc. are not worth much.  To cheat in negotiations 
with partners is okay as long as you don't get caught.  Examples are 
plentiful.

What it means in practice is that the Soviet government will honor only 
verifiable agreements.  The government can always claim that all the 
Jews who wanted to leave the USSR have already done so.  (Actually this 
is what they ARE claiming now).

Another point to consider is that the USSR does not recognize a 
conception of emigration at all.  The Jews are allowed to leave only 
"for re-unification with relatives living in Israel".  (Can you think 
of anybody in good senses who wanted to leave the USSR?!  Unheard of!). 
This required an official invitation from such relatives.  A few years 
ago the postal service stopped delivering them.  There is no way of 
finding out where the invitations were and by whose order their 
delivery stopped.

Shcharansky was exchanged for a few western spies.  Who can prevent the 
Soviets to arrest any honest businessman, declare him a spy, and demand 
to exchange him for a real Soviet spy?  Or to arrest a dissident and 
then demand the West to tear down a few missile launchers in Western 
Europe in exchange for his release?  Where will we stop?

My point is that there is no way of dealing with the USSR on 
humanitarian ground.  And it is impossible to trade important issues,
such as national defense, for something that the USSR can stop doing 
any time they wish.
    
Re: -1
    
    This is true that there should always be communications open.  However,
    dealing with the Soviets one can always be aware of this differences
    of mentalities.  For three generations the Soviets were brainwashed
    that they are surrounded by enemies.  By know this is the attitude
    of not only common people but the government as well.  As a great
    reference I would recommend Khrushchev's memoirs.

    Please keep in mind that I have a first hand experience.
    
    Leo

    Re: 'treaties' with the USSR:  Remember what happened when Chamberlain
    signed a peace treaty with Hitler?
    
    Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    Who said "treaties"?
    
    Diplomatic recognition is simply an official channel of communication
    with certain protocols and priveleges associated with it.  It does
    not imply friendship or trust.
    
    Paranoia is the national religion of the USSR.  It is practiced
    by government and populace alike.  Understanding this and dealing
    with it appropriately means that one can deal with the USSR, in
    some way, without being snookered by them.  Analogies to N.Chamberlain
    have no relevance whatsoever; he made a deal with the devil, who
    didn't keep it.  _Verifiable_ deals, and _reasonable_ ones where
    compliance is not a matter of faith, can be made with the USSR and
    anyone else you have reason to deal with.
    
    Think of them as being like your landlord.  You don't like him,
    but you pay your rent and lock your doors!

    The thing you have to remember about government of the USSR which
    is fundimentaly different from the government of the US is that
    in the US the individual is the most significant unit of government.
    All the laws and the entire basis of the government is that is OF
    THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. In the USSR the most
    significant unit of government is the STATE. It is a Government
    OF THE STATE, BY THE STATE AND FOR THE STATE. The USSR doesn't see
    individuals as of any importance so that it feels justified in
    distroying an individual who is not a part of the status quo. In
    the US on the other hand no matter how abhorant or disgusting an
    individual is he is given the same protection of our laws because
    if we made an exception, just one then it could be the beginning
    of the end of our way of life (it sounds rather ominous but it is
    really could be quite true). Compare the following:
    
    	A small group of individuals gains control of a new distructive
    weapon. They use the same weapon to distroy an important industrial
    facility. In so doing they kill over 1000 people both inside and
    outside of the facility. They are caught. What would happen to them?
    
    	US: They would go to court and through a long process of appeals
            to make sure that 1) these are the correct people, 2) they
            knew what they were doing, and 3) All the correct procedures
            were used in capturing them.
    
    	USSR: Summary execution or slave labor in Siebria.
    
    	In the USSR whatever would be better for the state would be
    used either execution as an example or labor because they are needed
    assets of the state and their strength is needed to help the state
    grow. In the US we would bend over backwards to make sure that their
    rights as individuals are not violated even though everyone is
    disgusted by what they did. This is the difference and it must be
    accepted as fact by us if we are to succeed in dealing with the
    USSR. 
    	
    	They on the other hand see us as weak when we spend so much
    time protecting those who they would see as valuable assets. This
    is why they spend so much time training terrorists and equiping
    them. These are valuable assets to be used and then discarded as
    long as the state can continue unencumbered.
    

    I wish that all the Americans have the same great understanding
    about the USSR as I saw in both -.2 and -.1.  Then it would be possible
    to deal with the Soviets.  Unfortunately I heard many times here
    in the US that the people are the same.  Those who say this forget
    that there are people on this side and there is the government that
    does not care about people on the other side.

   	Leo

     
     I don't think that anyone is denying that there are some freedoms in
     the US that Soviet citizens don't enjoy.  Overall, the standard of
     living is much higher in the States than in the USSR.  On the other
     hand, there are lots of people at the low end of the economic spectrum
     who might have a better living standard in the Soviet Union.
     
     But what on earth does this have to do with international recognition?
     
     Can any of the crowd that's telling us about the immorality of the
     Soviets explain why Israel, or any other country, is better off by not
     having diplomatic relations with the USSR?
     
     --Mr Topaz 

     
>    Overall, the standard of living is much higher in the 
>    States than in the USSR.  

    I would suspect that those Russians that co-operate with
    the government (IE: Spying on friends/relatives) live
    a standard higher than alot of Americans.
    
>   But what on earth does this have to do with international recognition?
 
    Funny, I was just asking myself the same question.
    
>     Can any of the crowd that's telling us about the immorality of the
>     Soviets explain why Israel, or any other country, is better off by not
>     having diplomatic relations with the USSR?

    First off, no one here said that the Soviets are immoral,
    just that they have a Different sense of morality.  A different
    set of values by which to judge whether an action or thought
    is moral or not.

    Again, no one said that any country is better off NOT dealing
    with the Soviets, but if so, then do so with guard up.  Attitudes
    like "We all want peace, right ?" are dangerous.

    While walking out the door this morning I heard that the Israel/USSR
    talks were called off after only 90 minutes because of 'differences
    that can't be worked out' or something to that effect. These were
    supposed to be 3 days worth of talks aimed at getting consulats
    in both Tel Aviv and Moscow. 
    
    Gee, In 90 minutes they couldn't even decide what kind of a table
    to use much less how many ice cubes should be in each glass of water
    or for that matter who gets water glasses. :-)
    
    overall it is a pretty sad state of affairs when trained diplomats
    can't even talk for 90 minutes. :-( 
    
    I guess there won't be any need for this note anymore.
    

    It's a wimpy moral system that can't call anyone "bad", but just 
    explains that they have a "different moral system". The whole point 
    of a moral system is for the making of judgements about good and 
    evil acts and persons.
    
    Bertold Brecht says "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral"
    (roughly "Chow first, then morals", in the play Rise_and_Fall_of_the_
    city_of_Mahogany).  People whose moral systems get in the way of 
    their survival don't survive.
    
    What this means is that it is perfectly reasonable and consistent
    for the US or Israel to have diplomatic relations with the USSR,
    even if they think (in whatever sense millions of people can be
    said to have a collective option) that the USSR is "an evil empire".
    
    		-John Bishop

    Past history has shown this to be untrue Mr. Bishop.

    I think we are getting away from the original question of whether
    or not Israel should negotiate with the Soviets. Without dialog
    there can be no progress on any issue. As far as the Soviet style
    of negotiating is concerned, Israel can hold it's own and drive a
    good bargain.
    
    BTW, this mornings news reported that the official reason given by
    the Soviets for the talks is to discuss the status of property
    owned in Israel by the Russian Orthodox Church. 

    Re: 25
    
    	What has past history shown to be untrue?  I said more
    	than one thing, after all!
    
    Re: 26
    
    	Does the USSR claim that all property of the Russian 
    	Orthodox Church is _ipso_facto_ Soviet property?
    
    			-John Bishop

    The whole issue of the Russian Orthodox Church property is pretty
    much a smoke screen for their real intentions. If the Russians were
    so interested in that property, then they had from 1948-1967 to
    settle it. The Soviets want into the Middle East peace process
    (is there one?), and the only way they can do that is by 
    reestabilishing diplomatic relations with Israel.
    
    However it is a situation of both sides needing something.  In Israel's
    case, they demand free emigration for Soviet Jews who so desire
    it.  It's fair to assume that somewhere down the road there will
    be a compromise. 
    
    David