4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, October 4, 1993 tw £id~4jn Imtti -im Lasser 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan JOSH Dulow Editor in Chief ANDREw LEVY Editorial Page Editor I., -~ I Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of the Daily editorial board. All other cartoons, articles and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. CAN T UNERSTAND II. wHY ALL 1"ESE WRIE- / zTUN -r% PEOPLE FRND ) -E ER TUN 70oi --I w 01 View Israel actions in proper context' By ARI ROTENBERG There has recently been a major change in the political and social conditions surrounding the Middle East. The agreement that was initiated a few weeks ago by an historic handshake is nothing less than an extraordinary and unprecedented attempt to overturn the legacy of a hatred which has consumed two peoples for the better part of fifty years. Although today's accords espouse feelings of uncertainty, the realization that it is but the first step towards a peaceful coexistence mandates excitement from those within the region and beyond. Although I am indeed optimistic about the future for both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, there are certain factors that pose substantial worry. An article by Katherine Metres, in the editorial section of the Daily (9/27/93), illustrates one of my fears. In her own analysis of the new accords, Metres engaged in unmitigated and unjustified chastisement of the state of Israel. The historical inaccuracies and misplaced contemporary criticisms that comprised her attack point to nothing more than an attempt to publicize her own radical political agenda. Such propaganda is indescribably detrimental to the advancement of a substantial and negotiated peace. Upon discussion of the "Arab- Israeli Conflict," it is important to identify the historical conditions from which many of the contemporary problems have stemmed. While presenting today's lopsided percentages of Jewish and Arab inhabitants on the land once known as Palestine, Metres neglects to identify two important historical facts. The first partition of Palestine occurred in 1921, when England's Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, gave all the land east of the Jordan River to King Abdulah of the Hashemite family. This area referred to as Trans-Jordan, which encompassed more than 80 percent of the land within the original Palestinian Mandate, was the predecessor to what is today Jordan- a country whose current population is over 65 percent Palestinian Arab. Also omitted from Metres' historical account was mention of the Arab's opposition at every opportunity for negotiated territorial division. In 1937, England's Peel Commission (a body that sought solution to the Arab- Zionist struggles) recommended the partition of two states: an Arab one, to occupy the majority of land west of the Jordan River; and a Jewish one. The Zionists accepted the offer, the Arabs refused. Again in 1947, when partition was suggested by the United Nations, the Zionists accepted - the Arabs chose to wage war! Metres then addressed the issue of Arab refugees. Her accusation was twofold: A) Israel expelled Arab inhabitants in 1948 and 1967, and; B) Israel is breaking international law by not adhering to U.N. Resolution 242. However, these allegations are void of factual accuracy. First, Arab dispersion in 1948 was initiated by the Palestinian Arab leader himself- Haj Amin Al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the Arab rejection of Partition, when the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia stood poised to push the Zionists into the Mediterranean, the Mufti warned Palestinian Arabs that failure to flee from their homes may cause them to fall casualty to the imposing Arab onslaught. Secondly, Resolution 242 has many components. One such distinction directly asserts that territory obtained in defensive military conquest is not subject to certain regulations established by the Resolution. The West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem were acquired by Israel after its defensive military victory in the Six Day War of 1967. Therefore, the unique status of these territories puts Israel's possession of them within the boundaries of international law. In regard to Metres' complaint about the continued presence of the Israeli Army in the autonomous region, I ask only one question. How and by whom should order be maintained in an area where many Palestinian inhabitants associate in theory and action with Islamic fundamentalists such as Hamas? Members of this and other radical Islamic movements have renewed their vow to continue violent opposition to any negotiated agreement- opposition against both Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Since no Palestinian Arab infrastructure for civil government exists in practice, would a newly appointed and armed Palestinian police force control the radicals who will contest their power? Since in the past, no Palestinian terrorism has ever been controlled or suppressed by a Palestinian political representative, I fear they will not be able to do so now. Consequently and unfortunately for the Israeli army, they must remain in the interim. In addition to the problems addressed above, Metres makes three other unjustified accusations whose mention in an editorial about the peace accords is wholly inappropriate. First, she points to terrorist acts by Jewish radicals and asserts that these fundamentalists are protected by the state. There is no merit in this maligning. Although there have always been Jewish radicals- ranging from the Stern Gang and Irgun of the pre- state days, to Rabbi Kahane's Kach in modern times- who have endorsed or perpetuated violent tactics, they have never operated within the boundaries of the Zionist movement or Israeli government. These fringe groups have never been tolerated by the state, and do not even have representation in Israel's political assembly. Next, Metres criticizes the decision by the Israeli government to close the territories, not allowing Palestinian Arabs access into Israel. What she neglects to say however, is that closure was chosen because it was the most humane solution to reduce the only substantial category of domestic violence- that being continual Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks on the private sector. Not a week goes by in Israel without stabbings and explosions which victimize an innocuous Israeli public. Finally, Metres voices her opposition to this summer's Israeli air strikes on Lebanon. But instead of pinning responsibility on Israel, a more appropriate criticism would scorn the originators of the conflict. Hisbalah, an Islamic fundamentalist group, has been operating within southern Lebanon, using it as a launching pad to bombard northern Israel with the traditional means of Arab opposition- missiles and gunfire. In addition to Hisbalah, President Assad of Syria, who has maintained order in Lebanon'since 1976 with a bloody despotic fist, should share the blame for not stamping out terrorist activity within the Lebanese borders. In conclusion, I assert that understanding the history in the Middle East is essential before one can engage in rational discourse on the region. However, as the heroic steps taken by Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat indicate, the history should not be an issue in the current dialogue for peace. The time for finger pointing is past because it has proved to be only detrimental and counter - productive. The fact is that there is a serious problem in Israel, one made up of struggles for freedom, legitimacy, and independence- to these aspirations, a solution must be found. Perhaps the accords signed are incomplete, but their value is indisputable. For the first time in many decades, the Jews and Arabs have taken a step in the right direction- they have embarked on a road that will hopefully end bloodshed and hatred, they have begun to agree on terms for peace. " 0 0 MSU paper opposes U' bylaw change The U-M Board of Regents' plan to forbid any form of discrimination against homosexuals is too broad- based-it could potentially limit free speech. The university's bylaws currently prevent discrimination on the basis of color, creed, race, religion, sex, na- tional origin, ancestry, age, marital, handicapper, or Vietnam-era veteran status. Additionally, in 1988, the U- M instituted a presidential policy that banned discrimination based on sexual A policy like this ... should not be so broad as to include free speech or roommate preference. There ls certainly a recognizable need for some type of an anti-discrimination policy for homosexuals in the bylaws at the U-M. However, limits neqd to be placed on what is included. Rotenberg is an LSA senior. Too many signs To the Daily: There is a big problem with signs, posters, etc. being posted in buildings where they don't belong. There are other problems connected anti-gay statements even for religious reasons, and having a homosexual roomate in the dorms would be insuf- mind on sexual orientation, as long as it is not threatening to a particular person or group. remove the marks left by the tape or other crud used to post. There are probably more problems that are related, but the best solution is to post only in authorized places. in enormous savings to the University - not just in cash, but in humiliation as well. Consider: the University, acting presumably on Cole's advice, has adopted positions over Hash Bash, research