MIM Notes 35                    Jan 23 1989 

U.S. shoots down Libyan planes

Two U.S. F-14s shot down two Libyan operated Soviet-made MIG-
23s over the Mediterranean on January 4th. They were 70 miles 
from the Libyan port of Tobruk.

 Libya claims that area as part of its boundaries. The United 
States has insisted that that Libya extends only 12 miles out 
into the sea. The issue is controversial internationally with 
most nations favoring the larger borders.

Libya claims the MIG-23s were unarmed and denounced the attack 
as "terrorism."

The Arab nations and the PLO criticized the attack.

The incident was a repeat of previous ones. In August 1981, 
the United States shot down two planes in the Gulf of Sidra, 
60 miles from the Libyan coast. "In March 1986, the United 
States attacked several Libyan ships and a missile 
installation on the Libyan mainland. In April 1986, the United 
States bombed Tripoli and Benghazi." (New York Times, 1/5/89, 
1, 4)

The New York Times may have sensed that something was up 
because in days prior to the bombing it ran front-page stories 
on the threat of Libyan chemical plants supposedly capable of 
making chemical weapons.  In West Germany, the "main evening 
television program" anchorperson Peter Voss asked "Why the 
deliberate naming of one German company by The New York Times? 
Was the purpose to prepare the way psychologically for another 
strike against Qaddafi?" (Ibid.) 

In December, Reagan had openly said that the United States was 
considering military action against Libya for the plant. Of 
course, the United States has chemical weapons of its own, but 
it claims that Qaddafi should not have them because of his 
unpredictable nature and terrorism.

Libya has pointed out that the United States itself has 
chemical weapons and used them in Vietnam. (New York Times, 
1/10/89, 5)

The United States has admitted that it did not give any radio 
warnings to the Libyan planes it shot down.

Democrats lap it up

"Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who has 
often criticized the President's foreign policy, said, 'Our 
pilots took appropriate defensive action.'" (New York Times, 
1/5/89, 4)

"Representative Les Aspin, Democrat of Wisconsin and chairman 
of the House Armed Services Committee, said, 'Colonel Qaddafi 
has been notoriously paranoid in recent days about some kind 
of American attack, and the Libyan military has been more 
active than usual.'" (Ibid.)

Why the Libya dogfight?

There are a number of reasons why the dogfight over the 
Mediterranean might have happened. The United States may be 
sending a signal concerning the chemical plant Libya has. 
Perhaps the pilots acted on their own in a situation 
predisposed to fighting.

Another likely reason however, is that the United States is 
testing out its weaponry in preparation for an escalation of 
military conflict.

The United States gained practice in several important aspects 
of war. It tracked the Libyan jets from their takeoff 
including their radio transmissions. It also took information 
on how the Libyans used their radar and other defensive 
systems while the United States attacked.

The U.S. provocations within Libyan territorial limits allow 
"the United States to assess the efficiency of the Libyan air 
defenses and provides electronical and signal characteristics 
of their Soviet-supplied equipment." (New York Times, 1/6/89, 
4)

The testing of the Soviet equipment used by the Libyans may be 
the real reason for the whole incident.

U.S. moves to give some credit to Arafat

For years, the PLO has made statements designed to please the 
United States that recognize Israel's right to existence. Yet, 
for years the United States and Israel persisted with the lie 
for public opinion that the PLO was "rejectionist" and did not 
recognize Israel's right to exist.

Now the United States is starting a dialogue with the PLO 
because it is all too clear that the U.S. imperialist camp 
must move to make an accommodation with the PLO or face a more 
radical alternative in the future. In fact, the PLO has come 
out in public to parrot what the U.S. State Department has 
asked it to say about Israel. (See details, "The Secret Effort 
on Arafat: Go-Betweens Seize Moment," New York Times, 
12/16/88, 1) The PLO included a promise to renounce terrorism.

The alternative that the United States is trying to avoid may 
very well be Islam. Although MIM Notes is not familiar with 
the situation in Palestinian movement, there are reports that 
the Islamic Resistance Movement (IRM) is taking stands more 
militant than the PLO's.  "'These international conferences 
will not correct the injustice or return the rights. . . 
Yielding any part of Palestine is yielding part of the 
religion.'" (St. Petersburg Times, 10/9/88, 23a)

Bir Zeit University conducted a poll that shows that 60% of 
the West Bank Palestinians want an Islamic state on the West 
Bank. (Ibid.)

The IRM may be in a position to lead the intifada, the 
uprising in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israel, however, at least publicly, continues its position of 
not recognizing the existence of PLO and continues to say it 
will not negotiate with the PLO. Recently though, it agreed to 
a peace conference headed by the U.N. Security Council, which 
includes the Soviet Union and China.

Israeli Labor Party shows its colors again

Many liberals in the United States and Israel have held their 
hopes for peace in the Labor Party of Israel. In fact, the 
Labor Party is the fraternal counterpart to the Democratic 
Socialists of America (DSA) in the United States. Certainly 
these liberals should be in favor of peace many think.

Yet, once again, in recent moves concerning the PLO, the Labor 
Party, which is headed by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, has 
continued in its program of not recognizing the PLO, 
supporting the occupation of Palestinian territories and even 
denouncing the United States for starting a dialogue with the 
PLO. (New York Times, 12/16/88, 6)

"'It sounded like it came Yitzhak Shamir's mouth," said 
Citizens Rights Movement member Yosi Sarid about Foreign 
Minister's Shimon Peres' statements. Shamir is the Likud Party 
leader and Prime Minister of Israel.

For this reason, Arabs within Israel are reported "leaving in 
droves" from the Labor Party. (St. Petersburg Times, 10/9/88, 
23a) This may explain Labor's slippage in recent elections.

Despite the Labor Party's failure to provide a real 
alternative to the Likud Party in Israel, the Israeli 
electorate still handed it a loss in the latest elections. The 
Likud, which is to the right of the Labor Party, could have 
ruled Israel in alliance with small right-wing, religious 
parties, but chose the Labor Party instead as a partner.

Why are the two major parties  in Israel both in favor of 
occupation of the West Bank? Why have both parties supported 
the ever-increasing settlement of Jews on formerly Arab lands?

 The two parties are both capitalist parties. In addition, the 
electorate great material stake in the occupation.  There are 
some large demonstrations against using too much "unnecessary" 
violence against Palestinians in the process, but 
fundamentally the population of Israel is a settler 
population. The benefits of occupation to the Israeli masses 
are too great--land--for the Israeli population to give it up 
merely through the efforts of glib-tongued liberals. 

Israeli right pushing for West Bank annexation

Now that King Hussein of Jordan has cut off economic ties to 
the West Bank and cleansed his hands of the affairs there, 
Israel is debating whether to move in to fill the void.

Jordan now taxes food from the West Bank as imports. It also 
abolished the Jordanian Parliament which consisted of one-half 
Palestinians and people from the West Bank. The savings to 
Jordan amount to $60 to $70 million. (New York Times, 
10/18/88, 1, 6)

Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, however, said that 
there was no need to annex the West Bank because Israel 
already owned it. (New York Times, 8/11/88, a3)

Israel continues massacre of Palestinians

On January 11th through the 16th, Israelis shot and killed two 
Palestinians each day. "In December, 31 Palestinians were shot 
dead." (New York Times, 1/17/89, 4)

The new Defense Minister also announced a tougher policy to 
allow more Israeli troops to shoot Palestinians. In the last 
month, 29 Palestinians have been killed, the most of any month 
since the beginning of the uprising. 

Israel has killed at least 332 Palestinians since the uprising 
began.

Libya returns body of Capt. Paul Lorence

After the United States shot down two Libyan planes, Libya 
returned the body of a U.S. serviceperson killed in the U.S. 
bombing raid on Tripoli in 1986.

It was considered a diplomatic message of moderation by Libya.

It also lends credibility to the story that Libya did indeed 
shoot down one of the bombers. (New York Times, 1/14/89, 5)

On January 4, U.S. Navy planes shot down The planes

The Associated Press  gave the majority of its coverage to the 
official State Department vertion: the planes were armed and 
agressive.  This was substantiated on blurred photographs of 
airplanes.  These photos were not demonstrated to be either of 
the Libyan planes or from the u.s. agressors.

The Libyan claims that the planes were unarmed reconassince 
aircraft and were attacked by 14 USA agressors were largely 
ignored by the AP.

Arab racism

Qadaffi was discredited for the Amerikan masses by reliance on 
the racist image of Arab peoples as irrational, dangerous, 
terrorist.

The media fixated on what Qadaffit was wearing.  AP discribed 
in detail his "pillbox hat," his hair, his mannorisms.  The 
number of body guards around him at his first press conference 
since the bombing of Tripoli was supposed to be an indicator 
of his paranoia.  These same factors are never used to paint 
the image of a white washington man.

When  Qadaffit called for direct negotiations with the United 
States to eliminate chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, stop 
SDI, and end U.S. intervention, he was rebutted as an idiot by 
U.S. delegate to the UN, Vernon Walters:

"The United States is not really disposed to receive lessons 
on terrorism from a nation like Sandinista Nicaragua.  Nor is 
it ready to be taught norms of international behavior by 
nations governed by various forms of military or civilian one-
party rule."

President Reagan said he dismissed Qadaffi's offer while 
Secretary of State George Shultz said there was no need to 
talk to the Libians directly, the U.S. would use 
intermediaries.

The Reagan administration then rejected the Saudi Arabian 
offer of mediation.