 |
 |
 |
The Golan for real peace with Syria. Is it worth it? Will Syria go for it?" Will Iran go for it?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11789
Comments
1
.
Peretz Rickett
said:
What a wonderful Chamberlainesque idea...
Posted by: Peretz Rickett on December 22, 2005 06:32 AM
2
.
ShyGuy
said:
(Points a virtual double barrel shotgun in Mr. Aronson's face)
Git off mah property!
Posted by: ShyGuy on December 22, 2005 07:02 AM
3
.
Bill Narvey
said:
Syria does not deserve nearly the credit given for honoring the ceasefire agreement with Israel for over 30 years. It is Israel's military strength and their willingness to use that strength against Syria if Syria breached the agreement.
Secondly, Hezbo'allah in Lebanon, while primarily supported and funded by Iran, has also been supported in a number of ways by the Syrians.
Syria deserves no credit.
For so long as Syria remains friendless and weak, there is no reason or compunction whatsoever for Israel to trade the Golan Heights for a peace deal with Syria.
Posted by: Bill Narvey on December 22, 2005 10:19 AM
4
.
Ed D
said:
The most stupid idea I have ever heard. My idea is: while Assad is on the ropes, Israel should destroy Hizbollah now and then Syria will dissentegrate.
Posted by: Ed D on December 22, 2005 11:21 AM
5
.
Ted Belman
said:
The Golan should only be given away on the following terms,
1. Syria, Lebanon and Iran must enter peace agreements with Israel wherein the northern border is agreed.
2. Hezballah is disbanded and disarmed
3. All parties cease support for terrorism against Israel
4. all refugees in Lebanon and Syria must be absorbed.
5. The Golan must be demilitarized and
Even then Israel must get a fifty year lease of the Golan while it satisfies itself that the four items are being honoured.
Pie in the sky.
Posted by: Ted Belman on December 22, 2005 12:24 PM
6
.
JoJo
said:
There has to be a price paid for attacking Israel for sixty continuous years: in the case of Syria, the Golan is it.
Let’s remember October 1973, the desperate anxious effort, the sacrifices of the Israeli army stopping the Syrian attack. To return the Golan is to invite another October '73.
Posted by: JoJo on December 22, 2005 03:08 PM
7
.
Leonard
said:
Whilst we have a fascist regime dominating Syria that is bent on trying to destroy Israel
the Golan remains non-negotiable. Its strategic heights are vital for Israel's security and without it the entire North of the country is wide open to an attack. Anyone who has visited the area or seen it from above will recognize this. Also it provides the water sources that flow into the Galilee and the Jordan river that Syria has already tried to divert once.Water is vital to israels survival. Over 50,000 Jews have settled on the Golan. It must now be regarded as an integral part of Israel. Syria can pull out of Lebanon, a country in which she has effectively occupied for 30 years and stop assassinating her leaders.
Posted by: Leonard on December 22, 2005 03:38 PM
8
.
kuhnkat
said:
The problem is the same as always with Arabs. Even if you make the deal and everyone signs on, how do you enforce it when the Syrians "change their mind" or declare the agreement Null and Void for some ridiculous reason?? There is no reason to trust any of the old regimes in the Middle East or anywhere else!!!
In the ME and most other areas of the world the old saying "Might Makes Right" is the only agreement which is relatively permanent.
Posted by: kuhnkat on December 22, 2005 11:28 PM
9
.
Innocent Criminal
said:
What a bunch of ignorant morons you have here in the comment section. In 1967 it was Israel that attacked first not the Arabs. And second, Egypt (with its old middle east regime) has kept its word on the peace treaty with Israel. To think you deserve this land because some book says so is the most idiotic and oppressive idea ever implemented. And why should UN resolutions be respected by the whole world except Israel? Dont lie to yourself and think the whole world is against you because if life was semi-fair you would have half of the land you control now.
And to the moron who uttered this gem "while Assad is on the ropes, Israel should destroy Hizbollah now and then Syria will dissentegrate." First learn how to spell, second, your not very bright strategist are you? first of all its in israel's worst interest for Syria to disintegrate, and more importantly its Syria's current weakness that should be the driver of a peace treaty ASAP. It might not happen very soon but tables tend to turn and when they do many in Israel would have wished a settlement was reached in the times of your sad existence
Posted by: Innocent Criminal on December 23, 2005 04:40 AM
10
.
t
said:
The golan heights should only be traded for peace when we are dead! Would you trade your house if your neighbor said that he would let you live if you give him your house? I would blast him into kingdom come!
Posted by: t on December 23, 2005 06:50 AM
11
.
t
said:
To "innocent criminal" You are soooooo wrong! Israel was attacked and attacked and attacked! In 67 they launched a pre emptive strike can you spell? The Egyptians have been arming the terrorists for years, get your history correct! And what has come of this peace? YOU TELL ME! I don tknow where you are from but I m assuming the US. YOUR president coddles terrorists! Especially Saudi Arabians! Remember who destroyed the towers and WHO ok d the only airspace on that fatefull day to the Saudis!
Posted by: t on December 23, 2005 07:43 AM
12
.
kuhnkat
said:
Innocent Criminal is such a wonderful military strategist that he can explain to us how Israel could have decimated the militaries of several countries in 6 days while they were scattered around their home countries at their home bases and elsewhere.
Ain't that right Innocent Criminal. You are now going to explain how Israel LURED all the military to their borders so they could attack and eliminate them??
And when you are done with that explanation you can also explain to us those warlike Israelis strategy to obtain permanent peace by annexing 0 square miles of their enemies land and occupying only land that BELONGS TO THEM???
Come on Innocent Criminal, I know you are up for it. Show us your scintillating genius!!!
Innocent Criminal is as innocent, and as intelligent as Tookie. Wonder if Arnie will OD him too??
Posted by: kuhnkat on December 23, 2005 03:49 PM
13
.
KUHNKAT
said:
Innocent Criminal Moron said:
"And second, Egypt (with its old middle east regime) has kept its word on the peace treaty with Israel."
Yes, and they have allowed the NAZI terrorist organisation Moslem Brotherhood to grow and now hold seats in their gubmint. These are the guys who assasinated the Egyptian prez who signed the peace treaty with Israel.
Other good things to come out of Egypt have been arms and Islamofascist smugglers to keep the MURDERERS in GAZA topped off. Wouldn't want to run out of terrorists, missiles, or ammo just as you are concluding that PEACE TREATY with Israel!!!!
Posted by: KUHNKAT on December 23, 2005 04:43 PM
14
.
kuhnkat
said:
Indigent Criminally Moronic also said:
" And why should UN resolutions be respected by the whole world except Israel?"
Lemmee see, the UN created Israel, the Arabs ignored them and attacked and got their booties kicked. Now the UN has been bought by Petrodollars and passes only resolutions against Israel who has operated under the UN's agreement and International law and they only pass resolutions condemning the country they created.
This is bad enough, BUT, the Balfour created Israel in trans and cis-Jordan a few years before the UN was around. The US, France, and Britain decided they didn't like it and broke their words.
Nope, can't see one reason why Israel should listen to ANYONE IN THE FREAKING WORLD!!! Who HASN'T gone out of their way to try and destroy Israel!!!!!!!
Posted by: kuhnkat on December 23, 2005 04:49 PM
15
.
kuhnkat
said:
InnOfScents Criminal also said:
"And to the moron who uttered this gem "while Assad is on the ropes, Israel should destroy Hizbollah now and then Syria will dissentegrate." First learn how to spell, second, your not very bright strategist are you? first of all its in israel's worst interest for Syria to disintegrate, and more importantly its Syria's current weakness that should be the driver of a peace treaty ASAP."
First off, y'all better lighten up on the spelling shots. You have a little problem with spelling, punctuation and grammar yourself boy. In fact, most of us do. Probably has sumthin' ta do with those fine socialist schools we went to.
Now, when you are dealing with a serial murderer you want to take them out as soon as possible to reduce the carnage. Secondly, Hizbullah is very connected with the Syrian NAZI gubmint and would add to the destabilization if destroyed in detail. Of course, if you are an insider maybe you can give us the details as to why that would NOT be true??
Finally, exactly which treaties that the Arabs have signed with Israel have ever been even close to being followed? I will include the one with Egypt that the Muzlim BrotherHOOD is trying to vote down now.
The only result of any settlement leaving the current players in place will be continuing Intifada against the Israelis.
You are a MORON and need to go back to playing with yourself where you will not negatively impact any other lefties.
Posted by: kuhnkat on December 23, 2005 05:04 PM
The Golan for real peace with Syria. Is it worth it? Will Syria go for it?" Will Iran go for it?
A deal with Israel can rehabilitate Syria's pariah regime
By Geoffrey Aronson, Financial Times
Bashar al-Assad, Syria's president, is fighting for survival. Since assuming power five years ago, the reluctant dictator has made almost every mistake in the book. He has suffered for his errors - Lebanon foremost among them - and failed to profit from his halting domestic reforms, unrequited assistance offered to a Bush administration mired in Iraq and lukewarm démarches towards Israel.
The report of Detlev Mehlis, the United Nations commissioner, earlier this month, a product of a Security Council resolution demanding Syrian co-operation with his investigation into the killing of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, draws the noose of international condemnation tighter around Damascus. But it also provides Mr Assad with time in which he can either save himself or provide the hangman with a stronger rope.
Mr Assad's past performance does not inspire confidence in his ability to manoeuvre adroitly out of his present predicament. As Hariri reportedly commented after a fateful 2004 meeting with Mr Assad: "We are dealing with a group of lunatics who could do anything." If the regime is indeed capable of anything, then it is well past time for Mr Assad to enhance rather than undermine the foundations for his political and perhaps personal survival.
Simply responding positively to UN dictates will not be sufficient to silence the voices ready to call for the removal of the Syrian Alawi version of Ba'ath party rule. Mr Assad must move beyond mere co-operation, as Libya's Muammer Gadaffi did when he surrendered his nuclear programme. If he is to end his pariah status, Mr Assad needs to transform the current crisis into an internationally recognised rationale for his survival.
The key to ending the international campaign against Damascus could be a deal with Israel. In order to make it so, however, Mr Assad will not only have to come clean to the UN but make Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, an offer too good to refuse.
The main elements of a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement are restoration of Syrian sovereignty over the Golan Heights conquered by Israel in 1967, creation of an agreed security regime, protection of water resources and the establishment of diplomatic relations. Syria argues that this agenda has long characterised its policy and that the blame for stalemate is Israel's alone. There is some merit to this. But Mr Assad now needs to compel Israel to consider an arrangement that will benefit both countries and recast relations throughout the region and perhaps beyond.
The Israeli bias against an agreement with Syria, which will result in Israel's retreat on the Golan Heights, has been nurtured for more than a generation. When Mr Assad's father Hafez, the "Lion of Damascus", was strong, Israel could not deal with him. When the elder Assad tried to seal his legacy to his son with a US-mediated agreement, Ehud Barak, Israel's then prime minister, demurred. With Syria now friendless and Mr Assad on the ropes, Israel under Mr Sharon sees no incentive to assist in his rehabilitation. After the Palestinian intifada and the success of its globalised economy, Israel claims not to be as interested in Arab recognition and the establishment of peaceful relations with its neighbours as before.
There is, nevertheless, a quiet debate in Israel about the option of an Israeli turn in Syria's direction and Mr Assad's readiness to move beyond the offer made by his father. Israel was far less enthusiastic about Syria's expulsion from Lebanon in the wake of Hariri's assassination than Paris or Washington. Today, Israel is concerned that the demise of the regime in Damascus, which for all of its faults has honoured its ceasefire agreement with Israel for more than 30 years, will create another active front against it. It is not ready to gamble on a successor to the Ba'ath party.
An Israeli-Syrian peace agreement would transform the politics of the Middle East. Among other things, it would restore the significance of the Arab-Israeli dimension as a gateway to progress and facilitate reform of the disruptive American military presence throughout the area. The Bush administration could not afford to obstruct a deal and would probably claim it as evidence of its masterful realpolitik.
If Mr Assad can summon the political will to transform his current troubles into an opportunity to establish his regime on a more solid and popular footing, he will confound critics and supporters alike. A deal with Israel will save him and do more than any regime change to promote the wellbeing of Syrians and Israelis alike.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The writer is director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace in Washington and a board member of Conflicts Forum, a non-profit organisation working for dialogue with Islamists
Posted by Ted Belman at December 22, 2005 05:53 AM