Golan Heights

[bigboab]

Israel has shown willingness to give up the Golan Heights' in return for peace in the region. This is great news as this has been a major stumbling block on the road to peace. It should now be up to the international community to ensure that the Heights are not used to attack Israel in any way. I hope for everyones sakes that this is the first major step toward lasting peace.:)

http://www.gm.tv/news/headlines/2008-04-23t201856z_01_l23416934_rtridst_0_ouktp-uk-syria-israel-peace.html

[IdolEyes787]

Palestinians have been offered better deals (2000 Camp David Summit. Palestine to contain 94% of the West Bank, and all of Gaza, with some land swapping; Reparations; Limited repatriation; etc)in the past and refused to negotiate.
I have seen nothing occur in the last eight years to make me believe that they would be more receptive now.
The problem with the situation in the Middle East is that their hostilities go much deeper than a simple dispute over land.
Until there is a fundamental altering in the way Arabs and Israelis view each other I'm afraid this conflict is destined to continue.

[arvind_sampath]

IdolEyes787 had noted that

The problem with the situation in the Middle East is that their hostilities go much deeper than a simple dispute over land.


I totally agree. All the problems that we see today, between Israel and Palestine, are only symptoms of what is arguably the longest-lasting conflict between two opposing groups or communities, anywhere in the world. Many believe,and they have good reason to, that the seeds were sown even as early as the biblical times. Something that old becomes, over time, a monster that negotiation and dialogue just cannot tame. It runs much deeper.
I remember being really into the mechanics of the conflict a couple of years ago, and from my varied readings at the time, Tom Robbins' novel "Skinny legs and all" still remains in my memory. Though this is in no way about the conflict itself (tom's novels are never about any one thing in particular...you'll know what i'm saying if you've read him) it does, in some interesting detail, touch upon the biblical roots of the conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinny_Legs_and_All

[Squeamous]

Israel would be mad to give up the Golan Heights.

[ilw]

umm the golan heights have next to nothing to do with palestinians and it won't happen anyway, olmert is way too weak politically to pull this off. The settlers won't accept land for peace

[tralalala]

I'd find it hard to believe that over 50% would give up the Heights.. Though a recent poll showed some 41% would be willing to give up the Heights in exchange for peace with the Syrians..

ilw notes that Olmert is weak politically - I must admit, that the weakest political figure in the region (after Lebanon's PM) is probably Assad.. He is a young, inexperienced leader, who works according to his impulses. His father had a much greater grip of control, and there were next to no problems up on the north-western border of Israel during Assad Senior's time.

Nowadays, after the destruction of their nuclear reactor (and don't tell me it was a mistake to attack it.. Just like everyone secretly thanked us for blowing up Saddam's reactor back in '81), I feel it's going to take a much more experienced Syrian leader, or rather, a crafty Israeli leader to actually get a proper peace treaty with the Syrian people..

It's actually not as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. But it's a matter of time until this dispute is sorted. Not a simple one, may I add.

[tralalala]

Well, time seems to do wonders.. Damascus and Jerusalem both stated today that the talks are going well. The Syrians stated Israel is willing to give up the Golan Heights in exchange for peace...

Looking good. Just hope it will be something real and totally serious, and not some political spin.

[Squeamous]

I've changed my mind. Perhaps Israel should give Syria's ball back, but under the proviso that if it comes over again it'll be confiscated :rolleyes:.

[torrentt]

won't happen, I don't think that a supporting terror country deserve land for peace for the reason that they won't give peace, they are best friends with Iran and share the same ideology - Israel must be vanished

[tralalala]

Then what's the point of holding the talks? :mellow: The whole idea is to give the land back in exchange for peace.. I mean, look at Egypt - We gave back the whole Sini desert, which is a whopping twice the size of Israel, in exchange for peace (an oil at a reduced price), and it worked. And they have diplomatic connections with Syria.. Libya... Many states that hate Israel.. Main idea though is that with them specifically we have peace. It worked. No reason why it shouldn't work again. And lets not forget, we always have our nukes if anything goes wrong... :shifty:

[torrentt]

Through Egypt's border with Gaza alot of means of warfare are transfered every day
and only once in a few weeks Egypt's police "discovers" some means of warfare.
Peace with egypt is a cold peace and the situation with syria is much worse, being the supporter of hizballah and best friends with Iran that just today Iran's Foreign Minister said that all muslims in the world must act for the deletion of Israel from the map. A couple of weeks ago after the talks about the Golan Heights began, Syria told Iran they want to tighten their bond with them even more. You can't have peace with a terror supporting country that did nothing to prove their willing for a truthful peace and only talk about getting closer to a country that wants to delete Israel from the map. Israel had already tried it with the Palestinians and that obviously didn't bring peace ("Gaza Pull-Out plan").

[tralalala]

Israel didn't try nothing with the Palestinians. It was a one sided pull out. Israel made no plans whatsoever with the PLO about quitting terrorism against Israel with that pullout.

Fact was, it more or less gave legitimacy to act against the Palestinians in Gaza since we weren't there anymore.

You claim there's a cold peace with Egypt. So? As long as there is an agreement that's what matters. If we could reach an agreement with Syria and the Palestinians, it would make life a hell of a lot easier for all of us (we wouldn't need to have soldiers going in and out of Gaza, wouldn't need to waste air-force time and efforts in the Gaza strip, wouldn't need to have so many soldiers on the Syrian border...). Not only this, but it would allow us to negotiate more deeply about the situation with Iran and Hizbollah, because we'd have "allies" to talk with. Egypt have been using one of their people to try and get Gilad Shalit out of Gaza. It's not working too efficiently but hey, at least there is something going on there.

Be a little open-minded. I'm not saying that if we have a peace treaty we should rush out and kiss and hug the Syrians and the Palestinians, I'm saying it would simply relieve some stress we have to much of anyways off of our backs..

[torrentt]

you need to look at the Palestinians in a clear mind. they chose hamas and hamas is a terror organization that wants all Israel, not only Gaza so they keep terrorizing.
there is a bond between hamas - hizballah - Syria - Iran and the ideology is the same.
Iran for Syria is like USA for Israel. If a country says that it will never compromise about the land for peace, it doesn't really want peace and a country who doesn't want peace won't keep it. you need to see more footages of hizballah aka Syrian/Iran terror group.

[tralalala]

I've seen plenty of footage, but you should take a look at the Egyptian case 30 years ago.. They wanted war, and they led every war against Israel (apart from the Lebanese wars obviously).
I honestly think that we should take a chance, make a peace treaty, and then, what with our nukes etc. if they decide to fight us despite the agreement, they get blown up.. Simple. It's more of a "who goes first" treaty.. Better than a "take a guess" no-treaty.

[torrentt]

Your idea is to give them the Golan Heights and then if they don't keep the agreement Israel should blow up the Golan? You can only give territory to a country you know is not producing terror and killing innocent people (hizballah (the Syrian terror group) soldier killed a friend of mine 4 years ago) and its the most stupid thing you can do to such a small country that is surrounded by enemies - to make it smaller. Don't forget the arab population is growing rapidly inside Israel and in 50 years if not nuked by Iran, there will be nothing else to do then to leave Israel due to lack of space and being the minority, having guerrilla fights inside Israel against the majority of arabs.
What Israel Should do is the close its gates for arabs and Once and for all do whats best for its interests and not its enemies. Israel should do what Russia or USA or any other self-respected nation would do, and stop giving up.

[tralalala]

Look, it's been proven time and time again that land doesn't matter anymore. Nowadays, rockets and co. can reach any spot in Israel, so it doesn't matter whether they have the Golan or not, if they want to rocket Tel Aviv, they'll do so, whether from Qazrin, or from Damascus. Fighting over territory is a waste of time and effort, if all they want is territory which was conquered by us anyways, then why not use it for a peace treaty? It's exactly what we did with Sinai, so why not do it with the Golan too?

[torrentt]

they can't attack Israel if they want or not, there is much politics involved and you know Israel can strike back too. if they bomb a big city they will get bombed X20 harder, unlike rocketing sterot

[tralalala]

Of course, so why worry about handing back land if they could attack either way? :huh:

[torrentt]

why give land to enemies? if the answer is "its their land" or "its for peace" so its not their land (maybe they got if from the French but who gave it to the French). and even if it was, there is a national law that says that if a country attack you and start a war, and you conquer some of his land, its yours 100% no argues - there are many places like this all over the world and i don't see them coming back for free to the last owners. and about the peace thing already told you....
if you want to experiment things, don't do it on a country that most people don't think the same as you, and not with radical islam

[lynx]

if you want to experiment things, don't do it on a country that most people don't think the same as you, and not with radical islamYep, it would be a good idea if you made peace with some of your friends. :dry:

[tralalala]

Once again, I'll go, for the umpteenth time, into the example about Sinai. We gave it back in exchange for peace, it worked. Whether it be cold or warm, it's there, and we don't need to worry about the Egyptian army attacking us. Why not do the same with Syria? How are they any different? Egypt were just as bad before, and they actually led all wars against Israel. Look where we are with them now.

Think of it that way.

[torrentt]

do what u want, there is much more to lose if you are wrong and Israel will give the Golan, then if you are right and Israel will not give it
i simply don't/won't trust terrorists

[lynx]

do what u want, there is much more to lose if you are wrong and Israel will give the Golan, then if you are right and Israel will not give it
i simply don't/won't trust terroristsSince many around the world regard your own country as a terrorist state, why should they trust you?

You need to look at things with a more open mind, instead of putting predetermined labels on everything because of what's happened in the past.

[torrentt]

do what u want, there is much more to lose if you are wrong and Israel will give the Golan, then if you are right and Israel will not give it
i simply don't/won't trust terroristsSince many around the world regard your own country as a terrorist state, why should they trust you?

You need to look at things with a more open mind, instead of putting predetermined labels on everything because of what's happened in the past.

those who regard Israel as a terrorist state are the 24 arab countries.
some of them also say there was no holocaust and some say Israel belongs to them. i don't take insanity as a factor that i need to refer to.

[tralalala]

For the first time in many Middle Eastern discussion, I must agree with lynx. Try looking at it from their side of the story. They see us as cunts who took land that belongs to Arabs, and declared a state. Now, they know they can't wipe us out, and yeah, I think they'd be stupid to think so, so they try and negotiate terms that will fit them.

We need to find the fine line where what we want and what they want are close to meeting, and then use it. It's possible. We should give it a go. Anything is better than a constant threat of war.

[torrentt]

why not give all Israel to the arabs and then we will have peace with all of them?
we must be kind to all the nice arabs and give them what they want, we don't want to be on their way. next step is to give more land to the palestinians (who never existed until 1948) and maybe they will be kind enough to let us live. u must see it from their eyes, they are all waiting to come back to where they lived 60 years ago, they don't support terror, they don't fight among themselfs, they don't teach their kids that killing Jews is going to heaven. all Israelis should go back to Europe and hope what happened 70 years ago won't happen again. but u must see it from their eyes too if they see too many Jews maybe they won't like us there too.
why won't you see the things from Israel eyes for a chage?
you think the Golan is a Syrian land, keep thinking this way, you're a minority, you can think what u want, thats pluralism, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. if you want you can buy some land and give it to them, since you clearly don't have affinity to this land that was belong to your ancestors until the exile and is part of every Zionist.

[lynx]

Since many around the world regard your own country as a terrorist state, why should they trust you?

You need to look at things with a more open mind, instead of putting predetermined labels on everything because of what's happened in the past.

those who regard Israel as a terrorist state are the 24 arab countries.
some of them also say there was no holocaust and some say Israel belongs to them. i don't take insanity as a factor that i need to refer to.There are plenty of others who regard Israel as a destabilising factor in the Middle East, and your arguments against the arab countries could just as equally be applied the other way round, it is simply a case of adjusting your viewpoint.

Another thing you need to remember is that many countries rely on oil from the arab states. If Israel used nukes against any one of them it is almost certain that the rest would go to war, which would mean you would have to use them again. If you think that the countries that rely on arab oil are going to stand by while Israel nukes their supplies you need to think again. That's how these things escalate, Israel would be gone in an instant.

[torrentt]

you're wrong. those who regard Israel as a destabilising factor in the Middle East are not aware to the reality here. They don't see the fights among arabs- shiites and sunnis, killing each other daily with no mercy. radical Islam uses force force and only force to achieve their willings, without even thinking about thinking about the suffer they cause.
as for the oil thing, the world won't terminate Israel if it bombs Iran, and as you can see all Europe and the USA are taking sanctions against them, and if they won't cooperate they will be attacked, by USA or Israel or more countries together.
personally i think its not reasonable to attack Iran alone and i hope Israel won't attack anyone, but if there is no other choice and Iran won't stop planning the end of Israel, then we must put an end to this.

[lynx]

I suggest you go back and read what I said properly.

Again, you are looking at things only from your own viewpoint. Others see it differently, whatever you say about the situation. Whether they are wrong is immaterial, they still see Israel as the destabilising influence.

I think you'll find the Golan Heights are still on the Israel-Syria border, even your own paranoia hasn't managed to shift it to Iran.

What's more I specifically said nukes. If nukes start flying around the M.E. a large proportion of the world's oil supply will be adversely affected, and it isn't likely to be restored while Israel still retains the threat of more nuclear strikes. In that situation I suspect you would find Israel could count its friends on a single finger, and I wouldn't even be too sure about that.

[ilw]

your opinions on this subject seem to have changed quite a lot tralalala. Is it experience in the IDF or getting older or did i fundamentally misunderstand you in the past?

[torrentt]

I suggest you go back and read what I said properly.

Again, you are looking at things only from your own viewpoint. Others see it differently, whatever you say about the situation. Whether they are wrong is immaterial, they still see Israel as the destabilising influence.

I think you'll find the Golan Heights are still on the Israel-Syria border, even your own paranoia hasn't managed to shift it to Iran.

What's more I specifically said nukes. If nukes start flying around the M.E. a large proportion of the world's oil supply will be adversely affected, and it isn't likely to be restored while Israel still retains the threat of more nuclear strikes. In that situation I suspect you would find Israel could count its friends on a single finger, and I wouldn't even be too sure about that.

i know there are more points of view
i told you the Israeli point of view (or most of the Israelis point of view)
the Golan is on the Israel-Syria border, thats a fact, other then that, Iran almost dictates Syria what to do, i know you don't think so, but i don't care, and even without Iran, Syria will only DISCUSS about peace if the Golan will 100% be theirs, otherwise, don't even bother - such country, who supports Hizballah (its a Syrian organization) that in the last war shot thousands of rockets into Israel with not special target, just shooting to the south , all that after kidnapping 2 soldiers and killing their friends (we still don't know if the 2 are alive), doesn't deserve anything IN MY POINT OF VIEW.
about the nukes, from your description, Israel will soon be gone no matter what it does. if it will attack, it will be attacked after a world war will begin and Israel won't have friends and all the arab countries will attack it, and if we don't attack, Iran will complete its nuke project and then shoot at Israel, as they promised that Israel will soon be gone while working on that project.
doing nothing isn't a solution.

[lynx]

It's a bit OT, but would you like to tell us where those 2 soldiers were when they were "kidnapped".
In case you missed the hastily withdrawn IDF press announcement they were part of an illegal incursion into southern Lebanon.
And the Hezbollah rocket attacks were a response to the full scale invasion of southern Lebanon attempting to recover them, not the other way round.

I know you won't believe any of that, I'm just demonstrating how there are 2 sides to every story, and the side presented by your own press is bound to have a strong amount of bias attached, whether it is justified or not.

I'm not trying to take sides here, simply meaning to show that none of us can blindly take for granted that the information presented by our own media is necessarily true.

[torrentt]

remind me where does it say that kidnapping people if crossed a border is ok? Lebanon isn't hizballah's. and a war started due to this incident, but IDF attacked specific targets, not by just shooting without caring who dies unlike hizballah (the Syrian organization).

[ilw]

israel used cluster munitions on inhabited villages in Lebanon...

[torrentt]

hizballa were shooting rockets from inhabited villages in Lebanon...
and in war as in war mistakes are made, unlike hizballah's tactics to shoot and kill as many citizens as possible inside Israel from villages and hide in the citizens houses.

[lynx]

remind me where does it say that kidnapping people if crossed a border is ok? Lebanon isn't hizballah's. and a war started due to this incident, but IDF attacked specific targets, not by just shooting without caring who dies unlike hizballah (the Syrian organization).When you cross a border with the intention of kidnapping or assassinating a leader of an opposing faction it is usually considered an act of war. If your troops are taken in such an action they are normally described as having been captured, not kidnapped. Hezbollah are based in Lebanon (not Syria) and are one of the major political forces there. Don't take my word for it though, go look it up for yourself.


hizballa were shooting rockets from inhabited villages in Lebanon...
and in war as in war mistakes are made, unlike hizballah's tactics to shoot and kill as many citizens as possible inside Israel from villages and hide in the citizens houses.People live in inhabited villages, Hezbollah are people, Hezbollah live in inhabited villages. Where do Israeli troops live when they aren't out invading neighbouring countries? I bet they go to towns and villages to hide behind non-combatants.

It's a poor argument, but if you want to use it remember that it works both ways - Israel started that particular conflict by bombing and shelling towns and villages.

[ilw]

hizballa were shooting rockets from inhabited villages in Lebanon...
and in war as in war mistakes are made, unlike hizballah's tactics to shoot and kill as many citizens as possible inside Israel from villages and hide in the citizens houses.

i was simply pointing out that you were wrong in saying the IDF doesn't fire indescriminately.

mistakes? get real. There must have been a reason why Israel set a new world record in the number of cluster munitions used (for a given timescale). To my mind it stinks of a scorched earth policy of mining huge swathes of lebanon around the border.

Don't get me wrong, I think Hizbollah are scum, but so are the IDF

[tralalala]

Dear lynx, can you please show me your source that says Israeli troops were going into Southern Lebanon in order to kidnap/assassin a Hizballah leader? As far as I know, the troops were in a hummer along the border road on the fence doing a scheduled patrol, as they have been doing since 2000... :blink:

If you had watched a film that was released about Ron Arad and the attack and kidnapping of the 3 soldiers back in 2000 (I really can't remember the year.. When the 3 soldiers were taken hostage, while Elhanan Tanenbaum was also held hostage), it was carefully planned by the militants - They attacked the soldiers from across the fence, hence, while they were in ISRAELI land, killed them, and took them into Lebanon.

That sounds like an act of war to me. I don't recall any Israeli troop doing such a thing, leading to the 2nd Lebanese war.

Furthermore, the initial rockets were shot to divert attention from the kidnapped soldiers to the attacking of the northern cities of Israel.


@ilw: I'm wondering if you understand the concept of the IDF - Israeli defense force. Hence, they don't act until acted against. That was the case in the 2nd Lebanese war. Cluster munitions? I could argue and say we were a shitload more humane by actually giving out paper leaflets saying exactly when and where these munitions were going to fall. I don't recall receiving any leaflets from Mr. Nasrallah telling me he was going to attack me at a certain place and time.

On top of all this, those Lebanese prats had the nerve to complain that some of the leaflets fell into the sea. Morons, should have been grateful they were even being given a date and time for these attacks.

[ilw]

IDF - Israeli defense force. Hence, they don't act until acted against. you have clearly never read 1984

[crackerjack]

Palestinians have been offered better deals (2000 Camp David Summit. Palestine to contain 94% of the West Bank, and all of Gaza, with some land swapping; Reparations; Limited repatriation; etc)in the past and refused to negotiate.
I have seen nothing occur in the last eight years to make me believe that they would be more receptive now.
The problem with the situation in the Middle East is that their hostilities go much deeper than a simple dispute over land.
Until there is a fundamental altering in the way Arabs and Israelis view each other I'm afraid this conflict is destined to continue.

I'm more interested in Why they refused it, such as the conditions and what they'd have to give up for it.

[tralalala]

^They'd have to give up on the dream of having the whole of Israel.. Basically.

[lynx]

Dear lynx, can you please show me your source that says Israeli troops were going into Southern Lebanon in order to kidnap/assassin a Hizballah leader? As far as I know, the troops were in a hummer along the border road on the fence doing a scheduled patrol, as they have been doing since 2000... :blink:No, I can't find any reference to it. I remember seeing an IDF press release which said the troops were patrolling the security zone (I can't remember the exact phrase), a description which has always been used to refer to the area INSIDE Lebanon. That press release was rapidly withdrawn, and was probably only reported because the immediate withdrawal itself attracted attention.

I have to admit, I thought I was going crazy, I couldn't find any reference to this press release. I was thinking that either someone has been extremely efficient in getting all references to it suppressed, or that maybe I had dreamt the whole thing. Then it struck me that maybe someone has been efficient, but a little TOO efficient. I haven't been able to find ANY references to Israeli press releases from July 2006, at least not on Google or Yahoo. A major conflict involving Israel and the Israeli government doesn't issue a single press release? I don't believe it.

Try it for yourself. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=israeli+press+release+july+2006)

[torrentt]

tralalala, isn't it obvious that ilw's and lynx's source is al-jazira (or al manar)?

[ilw]

piss off.

try to see this from a neutral persons eyes, look at a google search for 'cluster munitions lebanon' and what you will find is page after page after page of reputable news sources and organisations condemning what Israel did with cluster munitions in lebanon. A vaguely moral neutral person (which i aspire to be) would and should condemn it

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=cluster+munitions+lebanon&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[lynx]

piss off.

try to see this from a neutral persons eyes, look at a google search for 'cluster munitions lebanon' and what you will find is page after page after page of reputable news sources and organisations condemning what Israel did with cluster munitions in lebanon. A vaguely moral neutral person (which i aspire to be) would and should condemn it

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=cluster+munitions+lebanon&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I wonder, will the results they get be what you expect?

We already know that google and yahoo have bowed to pressure from the Chinese governments, the lack of any links to Israeli press releases from July 2006 makes me wonder what other pressures they have surrendered to.

[j2k4]

A vaguely moral neutral person (which i aspire to be)

Vaguely?

Moral?

Neutral?

All in one person?

Your internal conflict must be unbearable, sir. :dabs:

[tralalala]

ilw, you keep going on and on about the cluster munitions.. Once again, would you not agree that the fact nearly 100% of the attacks in Lebanon were predefined, and were announced to the Lebanese public prior to the actual bombardment, makes the use of these munitions a little less harsh than you make it out to be?

Could it be that you refuse to see, possible, the side of the war that causes Israel to use these weapons in order to hit people who could have tried to flee the building that we were going to attack, which we knew, from previous intelligence, was housing Hizbollah militants?

I still find it hard to understand that educated people like yourself and many others give in to heavy propaganda from a one, most enthusiastic might I add, Sheikh in Lebanon (Nasrallah), who claims he has won a war, when most of southern Lebanon after it was shredded to bits... And for a good reason. War is war. You fight fire with fire.

[zedex]

well of course the media is creating the public opinion and not the other way .
lynx the security zone is gone from 2000 and now there is just a plain border wich soldiers patroll it like in any other country . the security zone was made in order to prevent thing like shooting rockets on civillians cities but in order to hold that zone a lot of soldiers died . so when israel finally cleared from lebanon what happend .. ? hissbala armed himself like a mad dog and when they felt strong enough they bombed the hell out of us .... how suprising .

and for the main subject of this thread here is my post from a different thread about israel- hamas situation :


no point of blaming each other as i see it , what needs to happen is that ppl will start to go uot on the streets a protest caus right now only politicians run the show and they are controlled by their own private interests most of the time . they make war when it fits them and their campaign and try to make peace when the public opinion is getting sick of them and wants to kick them out . politicians in the middle east are a sad joke , full of ego and power control fricks ( israelies and palestinians politician the same ) . whenever they fill that their comftrable sit is being risked they will change their opinion in 180 degrees .


same goes in this case , this is just a politician spin . dont believe a word they say . nobody is gonna give the Golan just like that , especially not a weak prime minister like olmert who is soon gonna be kicked out from his chair . to make a real peace that the ppl will accept it too u need powerful leaders like Rabin , Begin , anuar Sadat and king hussain from jordan and not a buissnes man like Olmert or "the son of" like Asad .