UCLA faculty, students express opinions regarding Peres’
visit
By Phillip Carter
The biblical legend of David and Goliath tells the tale of a
young man who defeats his older, stronger enemy by using Goliath’s
strength and size against him.
For four decades, the tiny Jewish state of Israel has been
portrayed in the same way in its long  and successful Â
fight against its Arab neighbors. The conflict ended last year,
when Israel made peace with its longtime enemies Syria, Jordan and
the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres’ Thursday visit to UCLA
evoked strong opinions from Bruin faculty and students, who said
they felt the impact of the Middle East peace process 8,000 miles
away in California.
"It has enormous effects on Arab and Israeli students,"
political science Professor Steven Spiegel said. "Personal
interchange, the possibility of (lasting) peace in the area, the
possibility of not having to go to war," could all result, he
added.
However, students say the current Middle East peace process,
affects the area in an ambiguous way, and could harm Israel more
than help it.
"I’m all for peace, but I don’t believe that giving up land will
bring about peace, and is good for Israel," third-year political
science student Karen Springer said. "If the Arabs cared so much
about the Palestinians, why aren’t they the ones taking them
in?"
Other students disagreed, saying that Israel received
immeasurable benefit from the completion of the peace negotiations
between the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors.
"Our (Israel’s) gains are not tangible," Jewish Student Union
external vice president Shirley Dloomy said. "But if you ask a
soldier’s mother what she thinks, she’ll say she’s for peace."
Optimism about gains from the peace process seemed to be
widespread, and some UCLA professors said that the talks underway
now presented a unique opportunity for Middle Eastern
countries.
"I’m very enthusiastic about (the peace process,)" visiting Tel
Aviv University professor Yair Evron said. "It’s the only option
that Israel and the Arab states have  it is replete with
tremendous difficulties, but I think that it will go ahead."
To some, the actions of Peres and others in the peace
negotiations represent Israel’s surrender to terrorism.
"Any negotiations regarding the giving back of land are
suicidal," said UCLA Chabbad Rabbi Mendel Cunin. "We’re showing
terrorists that by acts of terrorism, they can get what they
want."
During his speech, Peres refuted the arguments of domestic
Israeli critics, saying the interests of peace overrode the
immediate  more selfish  needs of the Israeli
population.
"In war there is no alternative to victory  but in peace
there is no alternative to compromise," Peres said. "Everyone’s for
peace, but not everyone is for paying the cost of peace."
The conflict’s history stems from the area’s borders, which were
redrawn to create Israel in 1948, after a long struggle for
independence from the British. Until then, the area had been called
Palestine. The Palestinians, who are the centerpiece of much of the
conflict, are the Arab descendants of those who inhabited Israel
before it became a state.
Last year, Israel gave partial independence to two areas which
it seized during wars in the 1960s and 1970s, called the Gaza Strip
and West Bank. The Palestinians who live in these areas now have a
semi-autonomous government.
Debate now centers on the Golan Heights, an area at the
country’s northeastern end between Israel and its neighbor Syria,
which lost this land to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Syria considers the Heights its territory. Israel wants the land as
a buffer against Syria.
Some UCLA professors said that if Israel abandons the Heights,
such a move would be viewed as a significant step toward peace.
"There’s no way the peace process will be settled unless Israel
gives up part of the Golan Heights," said political science
Professor Richard Rosecrance. "There will be a demilitarization of
the Golan that will be internationally policed, so that there’s no
way that Syria will put guns back on the Golan."
These strategic buffers hold much importance for Israel,
Rosecrance said, because of Israel’s siege mind-set after they were
won in battle.
"If you go back and look at the basis of negotiations in 1967
and 1973, everyone was insane  land was crucial," Rosecrance
said.
But, he added, now the need for land is diminished, and the
mind-set has changed.