Conference taveng::bagels

    What to think ?
    From outside, and especially from Europe, it's very difficult to
    understand what's going on. I would say that the media are in
    general against Israel, but where is the truth ?
    
    How will Shamir (and his govt) react ? I heard that people in Eretz
    Israel, particularly young people, are fed up with the west banks
    conflicts and its understandable. We had to count too many deads,
    but on the other hand we CANNOT give up and Israel needs eveybody's
    help and support.
    
    I've been watching very carefully the interviews of Habash and Arafat,
    I don't think they are representative of the Palestinian, but somebody
    (?) is using them as "revolution instrument" and its very dangerous.
    
    I know that such thoughts are not helping but the more we are the
    more ideas we can bring and maybe we will end up with something
    realistic.
    
    Shalom.
    Aviva Panush (Geneva)
                         

    It sounds to me like Habash got his tuchis handed to him by the
    PNC.  He strongly resisted Arafat's position of accepting 242/338,
    and so he's going around saying that what they said, they didn't
    say, since he didn't agree with it!
    
    If one doesn't believe that they said it, then one could call their
    bluff by acting as if they did mean it, and negotiating pursuant
    to 242/338.  Habash seems to have allies in high places in Israel,
    however, who won't do so, and thus will allow the conflict to fester.

If I were in charge (ahh, if only I were in charge!) ...
I would take a chance and "call their bluff". I would try
to cut a deal with the PLO that excluded Syria (and
left ALL of the Golan in our hands) and did not require
the dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the W.Bank.

"But you are negotiating with MURDERERS!" 
	-- all the rulers of "normal" Arab countries are not 
	murderers? Would we refuse to talk to Assad? 
	to Saadem Hussein? Gorbachov? This line is childish
	and reminds me of the injunction "al tihyeh tsadik harbeh".

"But what makes you think you can TRUST the PLO?"
	-- "trust"? who trusts ANYBODY in these matters? I am
	talking about safeguards which Tsahal can guarantee along
	negotiated borders and along the Jordan.

"But what makes you think that Arafat or the PLO would agree to
  such safeguards?"
	-- Call their bluff! If a complete understanding about
	our requirements is worked out with Washington then I can't
	see that our position is worse off after failing to agree than
	if we refuse to negotiate. And if the PLO refuses to negotiate
	then our position is also no worse. The fact is that VERY SOON
	many European countries, possibly also Washington, certainly
	almost all African and Asian countries will have recognized the
	PLO. They will quite likely be recognized by MORE countries than
	we are. I don't believe that the PLO would have declared the
	Palestinian state's existence without such guarantees.
	Moscow and Washington may make a deal about the Middle
	East that will force us into an even worse position. 

	So I say: let's take the "talking initiative". We risk almost
	nothing!

Well, I guess that should get things going here...

-Zaitch

Re: < Note 585.3 by VAXWRK::ZAITCHIK "Existence is SOMETIMES a Predicate" >
>                           -< If elected I shall... >-

Ah, if only you had been elected!	8*)
Atleast, if Peres and Rabin had been elected.......[I mean "as majority"!].

Yesterday John Chancellor [in an otherwise naive and stupid commentary]
had a very important observation
	a Palestinian state would be most dangerous, not to Israel, but
	to Jordan!


-parthi

What is the PLO position regarding Jerusalem?

Dave

                                       
    The New York Times this morning has "excerpts from an unofficial United
    States Government translation of the political resolution passed Monday
    by the Palestine National Council." 
    
    It is both positive and negative.  Consider the following:
    
    [The PNC] "affirms the determination of the Palestine Liberation
    Organization to reach a comprehensive peaceful solution of the
    Arab-Israeli conflict and its essence, the Palestinian cause, within
    the framework of the United Nations charter, the principles and
    provisions of international law, the resolutions of the United Nations
    (the latest being United Nations Security Council Resolutions 605, 607
    and 608)..." 
    
    On the one hand, the use of the term "Israeli" seems to represent at
    least de facto recognition of the State, but (what seems to me) the
    pointed avoidance of mentioning resolutions 242 and 338 in this context
    is disturbing.  These resolutions are referred to in a different
    context (almost in passing), where it says: 
    
    "The necessity of holding and(sic) effective international conference
    concerning the Middle East Issue and its essence, the Palestinian
    cause, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the
    participation of the permanent member states of the United Nations
    Security Council and all the parties to the struggle in the region,
    including the Palestine Liberation Organization,...and by considering
    that the international conference will be held on the basis of United
    Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the assurance of
    the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people and, first and
    foremost, their right to self-determination in application of the
    principles and provisions of the United Nations charter..." 

    I read this as purposely ambiguous, which is understandable, given the
    obvious disagreements within the PNC, and it means that one has to be
    careful about drawing conclusions.  There is still a long way to go. 
    
    My own reading of the event is that it is very significant, for
    it represents some movement in a situation that has been almost
    completely stagnant.  The attempts at movement should be encouraged
    and reinforced whenever possible, and maybe, just maybe, it will
    develop to the point where a negotiated settlement can take place
    within our lifetime.

    						Aaron

re .5:

I believe that they say Jerusalem is (should be?) the capital of the
Palestinian state.

    From the text of the PLO statement as reported in today's NY Times:
    
    2.  Israeli withdrawal from all the Palestinian and Arab territories
    that it has occupied since 1967, including Arab Jerusalem.
    
    3.  Annulment of all the measures of annexationa and atachment and
    removal of settlements tha Israel has established in the Palestinian
    and Arab territories since the year 1967.