116 Comments »

Yaser, I certainly agree with you. Mutual respect is essential in establishing better relationships between people. I hope that the establishment of diplomatic relations will be a productive step forward for the Syrian and Lebanese people.

Yaser, what occurred in terms of the decree issued by Syrian president is one move in a game. The game has many regional and international players and each player in the game has its own targets and aims. Lebanon is the board where on all the players are playing. Lebanese are not one people; they are around 8 major groups:
1. The Shiaa group 32 %
2. The Sunnis – Hamas style group 8 %
3. The Sunnis – Mahmoud Abbas style group 22 %
4. The Sunnis – Alqaeda style group. 3 %
5. The Christians – Crusaders style group. 9%
6. The Christians – peaceful style group. 15 %
7. The Druze group. 4.5 %
8. The Palestinians 6.5 %.
Of course there are some minor subgroups like: The liberals, communists or ordinary people really wanting to have a real country where as the citizen have equal rights and duties. Those are people from all sects and compromise around 10 % of all of the above.
The game is an interactive game where as the foreign players interact with the Lebanese groups. Groups seek support from external powers and external powers seek Lebanese groups to support and play for them. Syria is one of the major players and it cannot afford not to play.
Players cannot play if the Lebanese groups are unified and do not want to play. At the same time the game cannot go on unless the external powers want to play. Lebanese group leaders are always ready to play the game since it preserves their personal self interests. External powers are always ready to play each for his own reasons.
The game will not end unless all the major groups or majority of the major groups will have a common target aiming at serving the Lebanese individual and citizen to have equal rights and obligations. This is very difficult in Lebanon. Many major groups are accommodating towards a this common ground but history tells us that such accommodation process almost always gets disrupted and derailed by some kind of external intervention like war, assassination, influx of new groups to Lebanon etc…
Yaser, bottom line is that Syria is still playing the game. Syria did not create that game. That game was on since centuries. Just look at the Lebanese history and you will understand.
Regarding racism by some Lebanese, about half the Lebanese are racists against Syrians and the presence of the Syrian army in Lebanon did not help beautify the picture. Personally I saw racists on both sides; Syrians and Lebanese. You cannot come up with a general conclusion about who is more racist. Few Arabs are not racists. Racism is popular and common in Arab countries. Arabs perform racism against each other and against others and it is widely spread. Your comment was short sighted on this aspect. Moreover, the Lebanese forces are the crusaders I mentioned them in my group divisions, group 5, above. Their racism is directed towards everybody not like them. They do it against Armenian Christians, against Arabs, against Sunnis, against Shias, against Syrians etc. They are good only in killing their own people since they discovered it is less dangerous than killing the others… They think they are the next best things after God. If you have watched the movie: “Kingdom of Conscious” (that about Jerusalem) you can easily identify them with the extremists in that movie and their fate is not far from those in the movie if they keep up their current attitude. The West is not helping out; they are trying to float up group 5 against group 6 thus jeopardizing the whole Christian presence in Lebanon. I don’t know, maybe this is intentional to solve the issue of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
Yaser, your last comment is absurd. I cannot put my finger on its absurdity. Could you explain your last comment please?

well , I think such parties/groups should be held accountable for their attitudes , and talking from the viewpoint of somone who observes the lebanese scene I believe the majority of the Lebanese people want this game to end ,however I have no business interefering in internal lebanese affairs and have no idea how you will get there. nevertheless I would be happy to see more Lebanese being less aggressive in their rhetoric against syria and stop blaming us for evey thing .
I’ll explain my point for you ,I believe what is good for Syria will reflect on Lebanon and visversa ,and healthy relations will benefit all of us ,however how we can achieve positive relations between the two countries.
it starts when both of us recognize and accept the other part ,I know we have a lot to do ( as we always take sides and have done many things that alienate many lebanese parties) but the Lebanese should accept syria as it is as i would ask all other countries (including the U.S) the point is you can’t have a Syria that is tailored to your standards ,the task of changing how Syrian diplomacy conducts itself is one of the Syrian people ,not a dedication by out side forces, for my part I consider my self to have nothing in common when it comes to the current rule in Syria ,however I take a realistic approach and try to do my part(however small) to change things ,I oppose the regime but I know that you have to be equipped with the right tools and the right logic if you want to have results ,you have to be smart when confront the other side but you have to accept the other point of view.
that kind of respect is what I am talking about ,let us determine our direction and stop pressuring us to comply with your version of the region .
of course that I would love to see the syrian regime do the same vis-a-vis lebanon in turn.
i hope i was clear and could convey my idea to you.

Yaser oh Yaser, you have a lot to learn about Lebanon-Syria. You are approaching the subject as if it is a conflict between Lebanon-Lebanese on one side and Syria-Syrians on the other side. You are approaching the subject from a national pride angle. That angle is naieve and uninformed. I can not explain it right now and i need pages to cover all angles.
At the same time you are approaching the regime issue as if the middle East is overwhelmed by democracy and ideal regimes all over and Syria is the only regime that needs to be changed. It is the mentality of the whole people in the region that has to change including Syrians. Even when the West when they came to Iraq they behaved the same way any regional power is behaving out of being overwhelmed by the mentality of the people in the Middle East. What is the difference between the regimes in Syria and Egypt for example? I ceased to believe that changing regimes bring democracy and human rights. I prefer law, order and security. Even the Lebanese when they gained their freedom from Syrian mandate they jumped on each other’s throats trying to annihilate the political existance of the other.
Any how, you have to put a better educated argument Yaser. you sound way away from reality in the Middle East. Way away.

Well, Yaser and Ibraheem, is certainly seems complicated and not a pretty picture. The one thing that can never be doubted is the goodwill and kindness of those who post here and call this complicated region home While such good people exist, hope is never lost, though the solutions to these drastic problems seem insurmountable.

lynne most Lebanese and Syrians, let us say 90 % are not at enemity and they do not consider themselves enemies. Of course politicians is something else. As for Racism, most lebanese, syrians and other arabs are racists one way or the other against every body. Some Syrians are even racists against each other and some Lebanese against each other too.. It comes out of ignorance.
Well, it is more complicated that what i am saying and maybe i can write somethign about it. Frankly yaser put up a good point that i might be oblivious to. The case that some Syrians might feel new enmity to Lebanese out of the incidents that occured the last 3 years between the 2 people. It might be a mood among some Syrians or a certain class living away from Syria. I have no clue about what it is really since it has been long time since i met Syrians at a deeper level from a certain class or a certain location.

Ibraheem, human failings. I work in an elementary school and you would not believe the hateful behavior of some of the teachers. The place is a complicated collection of alliances, each with an “enemy list” of other teachers and administrators. It’s pathetic. One would expect better of educators, especially in an elementary school setting. This behavior and hateful attitudes comes out of a kind of ignorance, too. The Middle East does not have the market on this disappointing behavior. It is everywhere. To your credit and Yaser’s, you rise far above it.
It is very reassuring to hear from you that at least 90% of the Lebanese and Syrians are potentially friendly toward each other. Yes, I agree. Leaders and politicians are something else altogether.
l

Yasser and Ibraheem,

The view from witihin Israel (and from the West as far as I can see) is that following Syria’s withdrawl from Lebanon it used covert operations to try and continue a sort of an indirect rule by blowing up leaders of March 14 and allied christian politicians.

The point being to intimidating the government into avoiding following through on the with purging Lebanon of the buisiness/organized crime networks from the occupation days or to impose authority on the border with Israel.

Following the May Coup the Syrian-Lebanese relationship is described as essentially being a case where Syria is subcontracting the occupation of Lebanon to the Hezboallah and other allied groups. Essentially enjoying the beneifts of
a. Latching on to Lebanon’s economy and import-exports pipeline.
b. Maintaining a harrasment of Israel’s northern borders without risking Syria- thereby pressuring Israel to return the Golan heights.

Obviously this view is very simplistic. However, my point is that the establishment of Syrian-Lebanese formal relations looks a bit, from the OUTSIDE, like the establishment of Polish-East German relations following WWII… it is very easy to have relations with a governmant you control.

I saw many of the racist feelings Ibraheem describes when I travelled in Poland, East Germany, Russia and the Ukraine during the 90’s. And I am sure I would encounter the same if I went to Georgia today. The “liberated” satellites viewed the Russians as boorish, cultually inferior and arrogant while the humilated but backward superpower viewed the Central europeans and ex-republics as ungrateful, dishonest… and arrogant.

I realize it is a bit silly to use East European paradigms to understand Syrian-Lebanese relations (for one thing the secreterian conflict was absent from those nations thanks to post WWII ethnic cleansing) but it is simply that so much that goes on WITHIN Syria and Lebanon is invisible to Israeli eyes (a bit difficult to travel there without being kidnapped and returned to Israel in a coffin).

Thank you both so much for giving us a bit of an inside glimpse of how Lebanese and Syrians think about the situation.

A question to both of you: Both of you seem to be not overly enamoured with the Idea of adopting a full fledged western style democratic government to Syria (or Lebanon).

Given the outcome of the Iraqi democratic experiment I can certainly understand that. But it seems to me that both the secretarian masquerade in Lebanon or the Authoritarian one-party rule in Syria are inherntly unstable and will degenerate over time if not gradually reformed. In the case of Syria the opposition will probably Sunni Muslim fundamentalist and if repressed it will grow more and more extreme until something bursts.

Do you think so too?

And if so what kind of system of government would you each like Lebanon and Syria to have and how do you think they can get there on their own WITHOUT outside interference?

P.S. I haven’t forgotten about Acre Ibraheem. But that will be a LONG post and I will save it to after the holidays.

Ibraheem,
the thing is when deplomatic relations were announced in the meditereanian summit back in july ,the syrian t.v hosted a lebanese journalist ,she talked about how people in both countries are going to celebrate when the embassies open ,when you talked about how it is just a game you kind of bursted my bubble:D
I am going to celebrate anyhow:)
Yoni,
to answer your question ,I say the rule in Syria ( I’ll stop using the word”regime”for now) is unstable ,but as long as there is no pressure from patriotic opposition forces that are well-orgnized and have a cleart vision and offer an alternative choice to Syrians the situation will stay as it is .
the answer will not be in terms of Sunni fundentalists or Alwaite dominance ,not less than it is not in terms of the outside forcing democracy on us.

Yasser,

“not less than it is not in terms of the outside forcing democracy on us.”

Not sure I understood that. Could you explain?

And ARE there any credible patriotic opposition forces? All we hear about in Israel is Rifat Assad (whom I understand is irrelevent nowadays) and the Muslim brotherhood.

Yoni, it is not easy to pass a judgment that all the covert operations that occurred the last 3 years in Lebanon were carried out by the Syrians. Emotionally it is easy to jump into such conclusion. Some of the bombs served the Syrian interests and fits their pattern of instrumental violence they use to serve their interests. Some of the bombs served no such interests at all. The information says that one of the killings, not a bomb, was a simple bloody feud over money laundering and one of the bombs served to kill a Syrian mole among March 14. 2 other bombs had no business of serving the Syrian interests at all. I wouldn’t jump emotionally into passing that judgment. However, most of the killings or bombs aimed at serving Syrian interests and had the Syrian signature on it. Let us call what occurred as covert war between 2 sides.
And yes there was a network of interests that was jeopardized. Some Lebanese and some Syrians had common interests. Those some Lebanese joined March 14. Some was organized crime but most was related to money laundering and being partners in corrupted business entities. Like controlling the Cell phone or Cement industry, stealing government seashore properties etc… The death of Mr. Hafez Assad set a chain reaction in Syria and Lebanon about who will inherit the power.
The conflict in Lebanon, last 3 years, was over who will inherit the power. The incidents lead to Syrian withdrawals and everybody rushed to fill the void and inherit the power. It is not about democracy, freedom and human rights. I was thrilled when people went to the streets asking Syria to get out but when one Lebanese Sectarian Leader who prospered and prevailed and got inflated by the Syrians started thinking of himself as the father of this people’s move and imposed himself as the custodian of this move I knew that something is going wrong and will go wrong and that the people’s move will get abducted by the sectarian leaders again. It was a momentarily euphoria of hope from my side but my knowledge about Lebanese community controlled my wishful thinking for having a better country. Lebanese community did not fail my knowledge. Lebanese fit perfectly the model I had in my mind about them and of course the Lebanese sectarian leaders did exactly what they were doing since 1975. They did not change; they just became richer, lol after years of flourishing with their Syrian partners.
Yoni I know it is difficult for you to understand what I wrote. You think the issue is not that complicated and that the conflict is about government on one side and Hezbollah on the other side. This is the angle you care about from your side of the fence. Well, the Lebanese government could have convinced the people and could have made the conflict go in such a way if they were smart enough and if they were wise enough. However, all Lebanese cannot avoid thinking in sectarian ways and they turned the conflict into a sectarian conflict where as Sunnis and Druze were on one side and Shias on the other side. Christians were being invited to join this side or that side. The title of the conflict was different from the core. Some on the government side are good statesmen, one of them is Mr. Seniora, but the sectarian game and feelings is stronger than their efforts to make it a conflict between government and nongovernment values.
Regarding imposing authority on the border with Israel this is another issue. Look, you cannot escape history and you cannot simplify things that much in Lebanon. Lebanon is not Syria for example. You cannot deal with the Lebanese like you deal with the Syrians or Egyptians or any other adjacent country to Israel. I am too busy at work now but I will give you a starter and I will leave the discussion till later on. As a starter, how can you convince the Lebanese in south Lebanon that there should be one authority only to protect the borders and it should be the Lebanese government and the Lebanese army only? Whereas all Lebanese, know that their army does not have ammunition. For example when Lebanese army went to fight terrorists in north Lebanon in Palestinian refugee camp each tank had only 5 shells and each soldier had only 2 rounds of bullets. How can you tell them to trust the government will protect them when in the seventies it gave part of south Lebanon to the Palestinian armed organizations to stage attacks on Israel and when they used to suffer from IDF ‘s retaliations at that period. Not to mention that the Palestinian organizations treated them like shit and violated every thing: the land, the people, the houses and the beliefs. How can you ask those Lebanese to forget that at one stage the Lebanese army participated with the militias in killing them and harming them? How can you tell them to trust Israel’s intentions where as it invaded Lebanon to destroy PLO but in the process caused a lots of death and destruction. Not to mention that it supported, directly or indirectly, the other Lebanese militias which killed many of them in Beirut of in South Lebanon. How do you want them to trust the government whose acting Interior minister says that he is preparing the internal security forces to face population of Lebanon of a certain sect? just because the idiot thought it is a good thing to tell the Western public opinion thinking the West is interested in his sectarian feud with other Lebanses. How can you tell those people to trust the army or security forces who shoot at his populace protesting against certain ill treatment killing many of them and then nobody gets held accountable? How can you convince them that the government will protect them against Alqaeda when those people see that some politicians, some in the government are financing, supporting and defending the salafist extremists.
You cannot convince them. To you it is a trivial thing that Lebanese government should have sole authority. To them it is not as trivial. To them it is an existential issue. That is why at one time I said it is too difficult to disarm Hezbollah. You can live with the arms of Hezbollah if you make sure it understands that each house in every village in south Lebanon will be destroyed and life in South Lebanon will be impossible if Hezbollah shoots a bibi gun across the borders.

Yoni, let me jump from the sequence of your comments to your comment that I am not overly enamored with the idea of adopting a fully fledged western style democratic government to Syria or Lebanon. Yoni, I wish I can close my eyes and see such governments in Syria, Lebanon and the whole of Middle East. I have so sectarian loyalty Yoni and in fact I am one of those whom you describe:”Home is where is heart is”. I hope you could get my hint here. If such government exists then it will provide solutions for the silly and bloody feuds Lebanon is facing. Look at Europe, only when the people became ready, after world wars and millions of deaths, then democracy became possible. The Arab countries are living in similar era where as wars are still going on and will go on for long time.
I lived and survived one bloody civil war in Lebanon. I had my dreams of an idealistic community where justice, freedom, democracy, equality, liberty and human rights prevail. I tasted the fear during war, I smelled the hate from others against others, I was surrounded with people butchering each other in the most primitive ways, I witnessed the pain that others inflict on others, I observed how people can slip into a lower primitive state and become animals and most important I assimilated the pattern of civil wars, of sectarian feuds, of sectarian hates, of sectarian leaders behavior and of the people’s slip into lower states. My mind identifies the same sectarian game being played in Lebanon again and again. Every time players think they can snap out of the same result that keeps repeating. The result was always that no one wins this sectarian game in Lebanon and the people just lose. Of course ordinary people die in the game and some become poorer. I am not immune from death and from losing my investments.
During the last 3 years and especially during the last “coup”, as you called it, my fears became enormous. I was observing the same classical patterns of Lebanese civil war which eventually ended when the Syrian regime came into Lebanon and got subcontracted the security in Lebanon. I observed the people who were slipping into primitive lower levels aiming at killing each others. I observed the Leaders agitating their sect members to kill their enemies. I observed the building up of new-old militias with fresh fighters waiting to kill. I identified the Syrian’s new-old game setting the process of manipulating the Lebanese sects and the West. So I am simply declaring I am a chicken who is not interested in dying or losing my fortune, in cross fire, in this absurd war game. Neither side will give me anything of value. Neither Hezbollah will give me anything of value if it wins, I have nothing in common with it, and nor the guys who uses alqaeda to fight Hezbollah will give me democracy and freedom. They will only give me an unstable place where the sectarian game will continue. I prefer to take it from the end, bring the Syrians in to bring stability, this time their leader is younger and will die much later until the time where as I can liquidate my assets and investments, with profits, and leave this silly place.
No need to hit my head to the wall again and again.

Lebanese and Israeli politics:

Actually Ibraheem I am finding, much to my distaste, that I AM beginning to get a feel for the internal politics of Lebanon and how non-trivial the implementation of Lebanese government authority actually is.

A week ago an Itallian friend of mine who returned from Lebanon casually remarked that our two countries and populations were actually very similiar (granted, she was mostly in the Christian-westernized sections of Lebanon).

I am absolutely terrified that she might be right. When I read Thomas Friedman’s book “from Beirut to Jerusalem” in 1995 I phoo-phooed him when he made the same observation. Now?

It increasingly looks like our central government is less and less of the supreme focus of national loyalty and authority and more and more as a buecratic moderator lumbering forward on inertia. Israeli Arabs, Ultra-Orthodox,
The Settlers, Ultra-left “Peace” groups, and even the supreme court (But I allready said Ultra leftists…) all place their own fanatical ideology above obidience to the law and the will of the majority.

All too often the state deals with these pressure groups through conciliation, bribes, negotiation and appeasment rather than through unconditional excercise of force and authority.

How long before the Majority of Jewish Israelis start forming Phalanges to protect their own interests? The prototypes are allready there and I’m not thinking about the territories. Look at the “New Shomer” in the Galliele.
Acre was only the worst symptom so far of this trend. It will probably get much worse before it gets better- unless normal Israeli Jews get their heads out of their collective ass and take back the country LEGALLY.

How did Yeats put it?

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

I believe OUR center CAN hold. And while its proponents are not as charismatic or appealing or coherent as the kooks on right, left and the Muslim sector neither are they and their followers nonentitites.

Now I have my own ideas on how our electoral system, courts, law-enforcement, constituiton, society etc Should be reorganized in order to prevent our transformation into a southern Lebanon (no offense intended to your country Ibraheem- But I don’t think Israeli Jews can survive without a strong centralized state). I also have Ideas on how all this can be realistically accomplished.

(Granted, these Ideas have caused one of my Ex-girlfriends to label me a closet fascist…)

What I am interested in is how YOU think the LEBANESE government should be organized if there WAS NO Israel, Syria, Iran or U.S to influence and be influenced by this.

Cantons, as Bashir Gemayel propsed, with each community enjoying self rule in it’s own territories with a weak central government (not that different than today) administering Beirut, federal Law enforcement, etc?

A unitary “State of all it’s citizens”, “one man, One vote” with secretarian allocation to parlimant abolished?

A total split up of Lebanon into Druze, Shia and Christian states (Akkar and other Sunni regions annexed by Syria) accompanied by population and territorial exchanges?

The same system as today lumbering on but with slightly different informal arrangements?

Something copletely different?

And how do you see Lebanon getting wherever you want it to go without external intervention?

Regarding Hezboallah:

First of all, while I’m afraid our Media DOES largely review Lebanese internal developements from the Hezboallah Vs government perspective most commentators, including Ehud Yaari, are clear to note that it is more accurate to describe Hezboallah’s stance towards Israel primarily as an internal Lebanese political discourse that is being externalized onto us. To some extent this is the whole story of the Israeli-Arab conflict where the confortation with Israel served as a prequisite for Arab leaders to maintain Legitimacy and for Arab revolutionaries to gain it…

That is why it is so frustarating for me and many Israelis to know so little about internal processes in Arab countries. Eventually, all these processes come back to haunt us…

“You can live with the arms of Hezbollah if you make sure it understands that each house in every village in south Lebanon will be destroyed and life in South Lebanon will be impossible if Hezbollah shoots a bibi gun across the borders.
”

I, and 99% of Israelis, would have no problem with that kind of deterrence- if it works. If we had performed better in 2006 this MIGHT have worked for at least a few decades by which time circumstances would have changed.

The trouble is I don’t think it can last indefinately given the setback (”Divine victory”) we suffered. It allowed Nasrallah to descipt war with Israel as winnable and damage suffered in the waging thereof as an acceptable and even welcome sacrifice. He might not MEAN it- but that is what the rank and file hear and at least partially believe.

Consider what Yasser said about anti-Syrian rheotic. Then consider how long it would be before a young Hezboallah hothead takes the rheotic of his leaders seriously and squeezes the trigger even if his leaders do not approve. We had plenty of that before 1967 with Jordanian and Egyptian soldiers. Or before Nasrallah is spurred on by radical opponents within his movement to translate rheotic to actions (Like Nasser in 1967…)

If we respond we have a full blown war, a demolished southern Lebanon, and a damaged northern Israel. if we don’t (as was the case between 2000-2006) or limit our response the radicals within Hezboallah are emboldened by our display of “weakness” and the attacks gradually escalate until we MUST respond in full……

Granted, the Hezboallah has shown incredible unity and self-discipline compared to any other opponent we ever faced so perhaps this “runaway bullet” scenario WILL be avoided. But what if Iranians or Syrians who regard Hezboallah and south Lebanon as expendable utilize their own agents? Or if Palestinians/Salafists not under Nasrallah’s control act? Or if factions in Lebanon who WANT Hezboallah and the Shiites to be harmed by another war with Israel stage an attack?

In each of these cases Nasrallah’s own rheotic will also deny him legitamacy to disown these attacks, let alone openly prevent them. Then what?

Hmmm…

Just read your second post (apparantly you wrote it at the same time as I wrote mine..). I’ve heard some Israelis speak in the same way. But not so many in the past three years. The Post-zionist trend is hopefully becoming Passe (or maybe or the post-zionists left already…).

And while I understand where you are coming from I am enough of a tribalist primitive to want to live in Israel and have israel survive and prosper in spite of personal inconvinence and suboptimal socio-economic conditions compared to the West.

I love my people, their culture, our own unique brilliance and talents and also our dysfunctionality and neuroses. Can’t realy see myself at home in the USA or Europe nor would I want to be.

Besides, you have to make a stand somewhere. Many of the ills and instabilities in our own democratic system I can see in Europe and the USA. theirs are simply better masked because they have fewer external-existential challenges to face.

And after the Paris riots, the London and Madrid bombings and the latest demographic reports… Well, let’s just they I am not sure that Israel is going to be an objectively less safe or stable place to live in the long term.

If we survive the next two decades anyway.

P.S. Forgive the personal question but how old are you?

I meant that we don’t want the outside forcing their democracy on us the same way as we don’t want to replace Alwite rule with fanatic sunni fundemntalism.
the two choices are bad .
I am not authorized to discuss internatl syrian politics in this site ..no just kidding:)
those forces exist and in the same time they don’t .the thing is ,we lack leadership ,a figure who can embody the movement to democracy and lead the people to challenge the current rule..

Where CAN internal Syrian politics be discussed openly Syrian to Syrian? How much has the internet improved the possibility for communication? And do you think it is possible your Mukhabarat is monitoring this site the way the Chinese government monitors their citizens on the net?

Ah…. right. Stupid questions.

I’m sort of trying to edge around asking:
1. What channels are avaliable for open political discussions in Syria given state supervision of Newspapers, Tv, Etc. Do you rely on Arab news like Al-Jazeera, use underground channels the state does not control, word of mouth in cafes, or simply speak in allusions and and borderline acceptable language in the state approved media?
2. If all these channels ARE limited or banned wouldn’t the fundamentalists have an advantage in forming an effective opposition? After all, the state can’t supervise the Mosques too closely without a strong baclash.
3. Do you feel you can discuss matters freely on this site or are limited in what you can say?

1. What channels are avaliable for open political discussions in Syria given state supervision of Newspapers, Tv, Etc. Do you rely on Arab news like Al-Jazeera, use underground channels the state does not control, word of mouth in cafes, or simply speak in allusions and and borderline acceptable language in the state approved media?
you can have open social discussion, open economical discussions (on T.V and printed media,or with friends) ,but as long as you are not orienting your discussion politically ,we are lacking a political discourse that is essential for any momentum to be created that will galvanize people into action ,I really don’t put the blame entirely on the rule ,it is the mentality of the average syrian man ,and that relates to the problem of the lack opf leadership I talked about.
2. If all these channels ARE limited or banned wouldn’t the fundamentalists have an advantage in forming an effective opposition? After all, the state can’t supervise the Mosques too closely without a strong baclash.
man , you are very obssesed with those fundamentalists ,relax.
the answer is NO ,they don’t have an advantage ,I am talking from a viewpoint of the mainstream ,thus forcing those elements’ agenda( and many don’t have any ,they are simply zealously relegious) on the whole of the country will not be accepted .
3. Do you feel you can discuss matters freely on this site or are limited in what you can say?
if you don’t want to insult the intelligence of the other side ,you have to be free ,and you have to abandon any preconceived notions ,however don’t foget the sensitivity present when we discuss any subject relating to the ME conflict after all the Golan Heights is still occupied and its the main object of any syrian to try and get it back.
btw ,what is your position regarding who the issue of the Golan Hieghts would be resolved?

tell me what you think of this:
Barak: Israel Considering Saudi Peace Plan
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD93TKQA01

Saudi peace plan:

I’m not sure what it IS. Why?

Because when it was proposed in 2002 it was could be boiled down as far as I could see into five articles:
1. Israel must unconditionally withdraw to the 1967 borders.
2. Israel and the palestinians must reach an “just” and “agreed upon solution” to the 1948 refugees.
3. The Arab league unaminously supports the “resistance” against Israel by the Palestinians…. and Hezboallah(!!!).

IF #1-#3 occur then:
4. Israel will have peace with ALL Arab league members- not just the palestinians and the front line states.
5. However, each Arab state will be free to determine the nature of the “peace” with Israel- that is peace with or without normalization (free trade, freedom of citizens to travel to Israel, etc).

The context of this offer was made just after a Hamas (which was then subsidised by Saudi Arabia) suicide bomber murdered 22 Israeli senior citizens during passover. Sharon then announced defensive shield and the rest is history.

But let’s disregard the context for a minute. What about the offer itself?

If it were only #1 and #4 I think it might prove a very good basis for negotiations. Certainly granting the legitimacy of the entire Arab league to the peace process would make Israelis much more willing to make concessions and delegitimize extremists who oppose negotiations. By opening up rlations with ALL Arab countries the Israeli economy would benefit and this would to some degree offest the reduction in security Israel would face by giving up the 1967 conquests. Exchanges of territory (Umm-al-Fahm for Gush Etzion!) could be offered to reduce the population displacement this would entail but the Israeli public would be willing to put up with a lot more of that if the prize was Arab-wide recognition and support for an agreement.

Of course #5 makes #4 a bit hollow. If there is no normalization and open economic borders with the non-front line Arab states then what is the point of a peace treaty with them is we HAVE a peace treaty with the frontline states and the palestinians? Of course it still have some value insofar as the frontliners will not be ocstracised and destablised by the rejectionists (as Sadat was). But this is an internal Arab matter that mainly provides an incentive (or removes a disincentive) for the frontliners to sign a peace treaty. Welcome- but not realy our business.

But it isn’t just #1 and #4 (and even #5)is it?

First you have #2 which is waht killed Taba and Camp David.

Israeli Jews can never agree to allowing Palestinians to enter Israel without giving up control of their country. And Palestinbains have repeatedly rejected any solution which does NOT allow the return. So what does this article mean?

#3. As long as Israel refuses to allow the return, and regardless of any ongoing negotiaions or interim agreements, the Arab league will support suicide bombings, rocket attacks and any other form of resistence. And it will do so even if we return to the 1967 borders- otherwise why express support for the Hezboallah who continued attacks after we withdrew from Lebanon with the explicit aim of Liberating ALL of Palestine?

#4 offers hope for Israelis which may get them to agree to #1 but this is neuterd by #5, rendered irrelevent by #2 and made a mockery of by #3. Especially given the context (no condemenation of the Park hotel massacre, no pressure to release Israelis kidnapped to Lebanon after withdrawal…).

Bottom line: If the offer were stripped down to #1(with some flexibility on territorial exchange) and #4 it might actually advance the non-existent peace process. As it is it is a roadblock.

Ahh… But I guess you are probably more interested in the Saudi peace proposal from the Golan-Syria angle.

Fair enough.

But I’ll warn you in advance that I have the sensitivity of a rottveiler and the tact of a hipo in a china shop.

Nontheless, I will give you an outline of the current Israeli mentality concerning the “Land for peace” and the Golan, identify the specific issues affecting our considerations, and then give my own bottom line conclusion.

“Land for peace”:

prior to the second Intifada and the 2006 war the discourse within Israeli society was between people who thought Peace was the supreme value Israel should struggle for and those who thought Israel’s land (and bear in mind that MOST Israelis do not view the Golan as “occupied Arab land” but as Israeli land that is claimed by Syria) was the supreme value.

Those who supported giving up the land for peace had little doubts that while the price of peace was painful we would actually get a peace treaty that would end any potential of future conflict. After all, we had the strongest army in the Middle East, right? We would still be stronger if we gave up the Golan so why would Syria want to fight us if we ended the territorial dispute? All future wars would be won by high-tech air campeighns anyway. Holding the land was nice but irrelevant to war.

Then we found out that the Palestinians would NOT be satisfied with the 1967 borders alone. THEN we found out that the Arab league backed the aims and means of the “right of return Intifada”. THEN we found out withdrawing from Lebanon did not end Hezboallah attacks. And THEN we found out that we could actually LOSE a limited war against an inferior foe who utilized terrain, international opinion, our own sensibilities against wholesale slaughter of civilians and highly trained small units disguised amongst a civilian population to rain short-range rockets that could NOT be intercepted or destroyed by high tech planes on our cities.

So things look very different now.

The question in giving up the Golan today for those willing to consider giving up land for peace (the rest won’t be persuaded anyway so..) is not- Is a peace worth giving up the land?

But…
1.Are we going to be in a better position to win a future war if we give up the land?
2. Is a future war more likely if we keep things as they are- or if we shake up the situation by territorial concessions?
3. What are our response options short of going to war if the treaty is violated?

Specific considerations on the Golan:

1. Demographic-moral: Unlike the West bank where the issue IS Moral (how can we keep 2 million people deprived of self-rule indefinately while denying them participation in Israeli democracy?) and humanitarian no such Issue exists in the Golan. There are roughly 20,000 Druze there (and 30,000 “Settlers”), half of them accepted Israeli citizenship in spite of fears of what would happen if we return the Golan, and as far of I can see 45% much prefer Israel to Syria, and 50% don’t realy give a damn so long as they are left alone. I know Syrian media describe at length pro-Syrian sentiment and “Resistance against Israeli occupation” but that simply isn’t there.

So we have no demographic or moral incentive to leave.

2. Water. Israel is drying up. Of course, so is the rest of the Middle East. With the Coastal and Mountain Aquifers depleted the only certain source of water we have is the Kinneret and the Golan controls it. We already had one border war prior to 1967 over water allocation with Syria. If we give back the Golan and Syria starts to divert water from the Kinneret covertly going to war may be nessecary- but not at all easy from a domestic or international point of view after a peace treaty is signed.

By contrast Syria has the Euphrates, The Orontes and other sources. We only have the Kinneret. Having a potentially hostile power sitting on top of it is… problematic.

3. Millitary. Anyone looking up at the cliffs of the Golan from the valley below has to marvel that we were ever able to take them in 1967. They are unbelevably steep. And Given our experiences in 2006 having fortified Syrian artillary and anti-tank teams up there does not sound very appealing. Unfortunately, If rocket teams start raining missile on Israeli town from the we will HAVE too- which means that Syria, by holding it, can achieve tactical defensive advantages AND the strategic offensive.

Unlike the Sinai, which creates a natural buffer zone where our airforce can devastate any Egyptian armored columns, the defensive millitary potential of the Golan is the result of good defensive topography alone and requires fortified and manned infantry and artillary emplacements to take advantage of. It could be crossed by a tank column in under two hours.

Furthermore, Anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns can be hidden in villages to offset any formal dimillitarization agreements.

Bottom line: giving up the Golan vastly reduces our millitary safety margin and would force us to keep a LARGER millitary presence “on standby” on the Northern border. This danger can be PARTLY attenuated by demillitarization agreements.

4. Irreversability and asymmetrical risktaking. Once we give up the Golan up we give it up for good. If the treaty IS violated by Syria it will take a full scale war, and a major clash with Domestic and international opinion (so they moved a brigade into the Hasbani… is it worth destroying middle east peace? Think 1936 and the Rhineland) to take it back.

Syria however can always re-declare war if we look vulnerable or if a radical group overthrows the current government (which is why I obsess about the fundamentalist). So the risk taking is on our side.

5. Exact borders: in 1948 Syria occupied a strip of land on the East sure of the Kinneret. After the war it was forced to withdarw but the strip (and other land occupied in the Hula) was gradually partioned on the ground in a series of vicous border wars.

So what exactly is the Golan? the international border? The Area Syria occupied in 1948? Or the area of actual control in 1967?

On a rights level I will mention it is infuriating to hear indignant Syrian demands for the land we conquered in 1967 accompanied by demands for the land YOU conquered in 1948… Which is what Farouk-A-Shara did in 2000.

6. Cold peace or normalization?

Are we simply going to have a legally binding ceasefire (which we have now) or will we reap the economic benefits of normalization? Giving up the Golan for a ceasefire we already have is one thing (and not much of a thing). Giving it up for full normalization is another. Especially since the thought is that with economic normalization will come emotional acceptance that will remove war from the decision making apparatus- like Europe after WWII.

Or it used to be. Israeli Utopian dreams for a “new Middle East” where Israel is economically integrated and accepted are less urgent in a globalized world… and less attractive after the intifada where many Israelis came to the conclusion they want as little contact with their suicide bombing neighbors as possible.

7. Heboallah and Iran: Are we going to see an end to missile supply to Hezboallah? Their restraint (I guess that’s not on the table anymore. They are Iranian proxies now in so much as they take orders from anyone)? An end to the Alliance with Iran?

And while we’re at it what about Syrian support for Palestianian rejectionists? What if our current detente with Abbas collapses? Will you avoid supporting him if we have a third Intifada? CAN we have a real Peace with Syria without resolving the Palestinian Issue?

Again think in terms of costs-benefits to israelis. Not “Syrian Sovereign rights to form alliances and “support resistance” as it pleases”.

8. Lebanon. We’d like to a quiet northern border. We’d also like NOT to have Syrian tanks and artillary in the Bekaa. That forces us to keep more troops on standby in the northern border.

9.Finally an Historical-rights perspective: As you mentioned Israel has been in occupation of the Golan heights for 41 years now… and it has been legally (Israeli law that is) annexed to Israel for 27 years. Syria had it for 21 years (1946-1967) and it was under the French Syrian mandate for another 23 years (1923 (when it was exchanged with the british mandate for nasrallahs seven Shiite villages)-1946). The “Arab land conquered in 1967!” may cause every red-blooded Syrian to feel insulted. back in the 70’s when we returned the Sinai to Egypt that might have resonated with us. Today? that is simply irrelevent. . For most Israelis the Golan is, well…. Israeli.

It’s our most popular hiking destination, the “settelers” there are not ultra-religous kooks like in the West Bank and the local Druze seem no different than those in Daliat-el-Carmel.

And before you answer that Israel has dragged it’s feet in order to diminish the Syrian claims while creating facts on the ground… Well, remeber the Khartoum declaration? Absent that the Golan probably WOULD have been returned in 1968.

And bearing in mind that Syria attacked us in 1967 when it HAD the Golan, AND that in the prior years it launched unending mortar assulats on civilian villages in the valley below…

Well, let’s just say we are not feeling overly empathetic to Syrian grievances as we are, to some extent, to the Palestinians. After all you HAVE a country that is much larger than ours and richer in water, agricultual land and mineral resources. Obssesing over a small (for you) border territory you lost in a war of agression seems…. petty.

10. Muslim/Arab Israeli/Western relations. the point has been made that seeing Palestinians humiliated daily by the Israeli occupation on Al-jazeera is a major cause of friction in the “conflict of civilizations”. Whatever the truth of that statement I don’t think the Golan has a similliar emotional impact- or that anyone realy cares about the territory outside Syria.

Individual Bottom line: Stripped of Moral reasons to return the Golan I would only support full return it for practical reasons (benefits of normalization) if:
a. It’s return was linked to #4 in the Saudi proposal…. Without #5. And I mean from ALL the Arab world. Not just Syria.
b. Demillitarization on the Syrian side all the way to Damascus to partially offset the loss of security we would suffer from giving up the Golan.
c. Continued Israeli MILLITARY presence in selected enclaves for an intermediatary period of 5-10 years and continued presence in the Hermon and in a bridgehead on the cliffs overlooking the Hula for a LONG time after that.
d. a formal water agreement safeguarding the current allocation if not improving it Israel’s and Jordan’s favor (hey, you have 2.5 times of much cubic water per capita than we do and 6 times as much as Jordan if you used it properly).
e. FORGET about the territories conquered by Syria in 1948. Any country demanding a return to “international boundaries” on the basis of international law should be ashemd to even raise that up.
f. I would PREFER to give the Golan back to a country where there was less chance of a fundamentalist Muslim brotherhood taking over (which is why I’m obsessed with them). I think a country which allows more freedom for civil society to grow is less likely to develop them as the exclusive effective opposition. But that is not a precondition. Just a preference.

Bottom line for Israelis in general:

I’ll refer you back to your own comments ” I believe that unless some minimum bar of mutual respect is achieved there is no point in exchanging ambassadors”.

The thing which most soured a Golan deal for most Israelis (65% oppose any agreement over it in any public opinion poll as compared to simmiliar percentages SUPPORTING West bank Territorial compromise) Is Farouk A Shara’s demenour towards Barak in 2000. he looked like a snob demanding that an attractive hooker pay HIM for Sex.

I mean come ON! He was being offered 10% of Israel’s non-desert area and he looked disgusted to be in the same room with the person offering it! Forget rational calculations (how likely is a peace treaty signed under these circumstances to be honored?).

Think how the average Israeli feel when he sees that. Then consider how you would feel if you Saw Israeli media and governmental organs praising whomever carried out the terrorist bombing in Damascus… And think how the average Israeli felt between 2000-2005 when he heard support for the suicide bombers wreaking havoc on our population.

Best way to get Israelis to support territorial concessions is to warm the official and unofficial tone a bit. We’re still suckers for the smile in spite of Arafat and the second Intifada.

Now another question back at you:
It is generally assumed in Israel that there is no chance that Syria will accept a territorial compromise over the Golan which will reduce the military disadvantage of giving it up (like moving the border 2 kilometers eastward in order to keep the cliffs overlooking the Kineret and Hulah Valley). It is also assumed that Syria will demand the expulsion of all Israeli Jews from the Golan and that it will refuse to give any formal gurantees of safety for those Druze who accepted Israeli citizenship.

So it’s an all or nothing deal.

Are these assumptions correct? Or would Some Syrians be willing to entertain some Ideas of compromise?

this is the most beautiful thing I’ve ever read

A parable about Syria and the Golan:

A man comes to you and tries to kill you with a gun. You defeat that man and take the gun away. Then the would-be murderer spends a considerable amount of time and effort trying to kill you in various ways; when these attempts fail, he demands that you give him the gun – and in exchange he says he’ll maybe consider not killing you (but no promises).

BTW, in general about ME peace: the average Israeli has already realized there’s not going to be peace in the next few centuries. It’s not on the agenda anymore, it’s just about the best way to keep the enemies away from us.

The government didn’t catch up to this yet – the power of inertia is great in the rotten bowels of the Israeli political system.

A parable about Syria and the Golan:

A man comes to you and tries to kill you with a gun. You defeat that man and take the gun away. Then the would-be murderer spends a considerable amount of time and effort trying to kill you in various other ways; when these attempts fail, he demands that you give him the gun – and in exchange he says he’ll maybe consider not killing you (but no promises).

BTW, in general about ME peace: the average Israeli has already realized there’s not going to be peace in the next few centuries. It’s not on the agenda anymore, it’s just about the best way to keep the enemies away from us.

The government didn’t catch up to this yet – the power of inertia is great in the rotten bowels of the Israeli political system.

Well… Yes.

That is what MOST Israelis MOSTLY think about the Golan NOW. But such public opinion is subject to fluctuation and external input. In the 90’s Most israelis supported territorial concessions in the Golan. If circumstances change sufficiently (Ok, and if pigs learn how to fly) they may support such concessions again.

However, bear in mind that the longer things stay as they are, as more third generation Jews are born on the Golan, as more Golan Druze opt to accept Israeli citizenship, And as water and food prices continue to increase then the less eager Israelis will be to return the Golan even under the conditions I outlined. Any return will probably be inconcievable within a decade.

And since any return of the Golan is dependent on a plebescite among Israeli voters you realy do need to convince THEM, rather then yourselves that returning the Golan is worthwhile and justified on a truely emotional level.

thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail.
I’ll confine my comment to the Golan question.
I wrote a post before about a vision for peace in the Golan if you havn’t readi it please do
http://gnblog.com/?p=256
there are very fundenmental disagreement between our position and that of the Israelis as described by your comment (and by Abu Sa’ar’s).
however I appreciate the fact that one have to be persuasive and speak to the Israeli public to try to reach peace (in contrast to the “arrogant ” attitude you mentioned by Syrian officials).
I’ll write a more detailed response in a bit..

Firstly the “Land for peace” principle is an internationally accepted principle as demonstrated by the parties who took part in the Madrid conference ,it was the basis upon which the official peace process have been launched between Syria and Israel and constituted the ground for all efforts to reach a settlement ,so it enjoys international recognition and legitimacy.
If peace was a supreme cause I think any events should not be allowed to make it any less supreme or sought after value ,don’t forget that there are just rights of the Palestinians and legitimate grievances that we can’t ignore ,those people are living under occupation in a very hard conditions so you may wish to take a moment and reflect on the causes of the Intifada and the reason behind the revolt of the Palestinian people. Again the guiding principle should be the quest for peace because when that is missing all our discussions will be in vain ,our side will be convinced in his rights as our side will be and both sides will remain entrenched with no movement towards a middle ground.
A simple remark : we consider the Golan to be occupied SYRIAN land not “occupied Arab Land” this may seem a slight difference but very important nevertheless.
Military superiority is no guarantee to avoid conflict ( the second Lebanese war is a very good example) and
I agree with you that a peace treaty is in itself no guarantee either ,but it is the only viable path toward normalizations which will ensure that both countries will think of peace terms rather in conflict and war terms.
I disagree with your remark about the resistance of Israeli occupation of the Golan ,it does exist and will always do ,it is the obligation (and right under international law)of every Syrian citizen to resist Israeli occupation of the Golan ,maybe we have another version of resistance than the Lebanese or the Palestinians,but that in no way makes our resistance less legitimate or less effective.
On The issue of demography,you maybe right ,but that is only because you have been working for the last 40 years to change the makeup of the population to your advantage ,we still have 30000 refugees from the Golan who are waiting to return to their homeland.
Concerning the moral incentive ,and as long as you are discarding the Syrian version of Israeli occupation by force , let me refer you to the numerous UN security counsel resolutions that declare with no ambiguity the right of Syria to have the Golan returned to it and the illegitimacy of Israeli occupation ( and subsequent annexation )

By contrast Syria has the Euphrates, The Orontes and other sources. We only have the Kinneret. Having a potentially hostile power sitting on top of it is… problematic.
This is self contradictory ,you well give Syria control over the Kinneret when you have a peace agreement which supposedly will end the hostility between the two countries ,so there will be no problem.
I hope you have read my previous post by now , water quotas and military arrangements I believe are not the major obstacles to peace they can be easily figured out if there are will and determination on both sides to reach an agreement , for my part I don’t mind Israel maintaining its rule in the Golan ( and the settlers there staying) after all you seem to have been doing a good job developing the land ,I personally would not oppose a treaty that will lease the Land to Israel for twenty, fifty ,one hundred years or even longer.
We can come up with a compromise and from my knowledge the Syrian party in the negotiations has been open to such creative solutions ,of course having a fair and committed third party (the U.S, the E.U) who can offer alternative benefits is very important in that context.
4. Irreversability and asymmetrical risktaking. Once we give up the Golan up we give it up for good. If the treaty IS violated by Syria it will take a full scale war, and a major clash with Domestic and international opinion (so they moved a brigade into the Hasbani… is it worth destroying middle east peace? Think 1936 and the Rhineland) to take it back.
It is not that black or white , it shouldn’t be like that ,that what negotiations are for ,no:)
Syria however can always re-declare war if we look vulnerable or if a radical group overthrows the current government (which is why I obsess about the fundamentalist). So the risk taking is on our side.
Excuse me ,but last time I checked Israel was the main source of aggression in the region ,with successive right wing governments taking power ,I see that it is us who should be more scared of an Israeli aggression not the other way around.
I will not argue regarding the borders of the Golan ,I have history and international legitimacy on my side ,you have pure military power.it is obvious who will win eventually .but for the sake of accuracy , the borders are of that prior to the of july 1967
The issue of a warm peace actually have been taking much of my interest and thinking I’ll reserve the discussion on this to another time .
I see that your point about Hizbullah and Iran is on of the main hindrances to peace, unfortunately I have very little leverage to change that, in the present time this also relate to the nature of the current rule in Syria ,which I believe is not capable of delivering peace in its current configuration. Change is needed on our side and that’s true.
9.Finally an Historical-rights perspective: As you mentioned Israel has been in occupation of the Golan heights for 41 years now… and it has been legally (Israeli law that is) annexed to Israel for 27 years. Syria had it for 21 years (1946-1967) and it was under the French Syrian mandate for another 23 years (1923 (when it was exchanged with the british mandate for nasrallahs seven Shiite villages)-1946). The “Arab land conquered in 1967!” may cause every red-blooded Syrian to feel insulted. back in the 70’s when we returned the Sinai to Egypt that might have resonated with us. Today? that is simply irrelevent. . For most Israelis the Golan is, well…. Israeli believe me that line of reasoning is the last thing you want to offer ,the Palestinians have been living in their land since ages ,and Israel have been in existence a mere fraction of that time ,so you don’t want to go there..
And bearing in mind that Syria attacked us in 1967 when it HAD the Golan, AND that in the prior years it launched unending mortar assulats on civilian villages in the valley below…
This is not the truth , there were disputes over territory and skirmishes ,but the attack was initiated by Israel who started the 1967 war .
10. Muslim/Arab Israeli/Western relations. the point has been made that seeing Palestinians humiliated daily by the Israeli occupation on Al-jazeera is a major cause of friction in the “conflict of civilizations”. Whatever the truth of that statement I don’t think the Golan has a similliar emotional impact- or that anyone realy cares about the territory outside Syria.
Well here I can give you a good point of view ,it has been an acceptable notion in diplomatic circles that no peace in the region will occur as long as the Golan issue is not resolved ,no Arab / Muslem country will start to accept Israel if it not address the Golan issue ,let alone have full official diplomatic or economical relations ,on the other hand the resolution of the Golan issue will certainly pave the way for a formal peace treaty with Lebanon and will definitely make it easier to reach peace with the Palestinians .
I myself accept the points mentioned in the Individual bottom line (except e and the first part of f ) and I think they should be and can be accommodated in any future settlement.
Bottom line for Israelis in general:
Refer to my comment about Hizbullah and Iran earliar.

Yasser,

I would like to respond to your response in detail but could you first clarify your position on the International (1923-1948) border Vs the 4th of July border?

If, as you say, your and Syria’s position is based on “international legitimacy” and the “inadmissibility of acquiring territory through conquest” then on what do you base Syria’s claim to the demillitarized zone established at the end of 1948? Especially given that the UN never recognized that zone as belonging to Syria (look at pre-1967 maps from any non Arab country. Or even Arab countries other than Syria) and that Syria didn’t even HAVE effective control of the areas it lays claim to in june 4th 1967?

I’ll say flat out that that is the #1 thing that ticks me off about the Syrian position. I find it hypocritical, greedy and flat out insulting to our intelligence- and to yours. Never mind the strategic implications of handing over the East Coast of the Kinneret to Syria.

In the absence of a self-consistent argument for WHY Syria should get back the 1967 AND 1948 land the conclusion must be that Syria thought it’s PAST invasion of Israel in 1948 was RIGHT- and that any future invasion, if Israel is weak enough would also be RIGHT. If you claim the 1948 demilitarized zone you will later claim the Hula, The Gallile and Haifa if we are weak enough for you to take it.

And if so why make ourselves weaker?

To some of your other points:

1. International legitimacy, UN resolutions and all that Jazz:

Yasser, here are some of the UN Security council resolutions condemming Israel:

a. A resolution condemming Israel for capturing and trying Eichmann, The Nazi who organized the deportation of 400,000 Hungarian Jews to the Death camps . Another resolution condemming his execution.

No resolution condemming Argentina for shelterin him for 30 years…

b. A resolution condemming Israel for “invading Uganda” in order to rescue the 73 passengers Hijacked by the Fatah and the Red army brigade in Entebbe.

No resolution condemming Uganda for murdering one of the Passengers, or sheltering the kidnappers. Certainly none condemming the fatah for the kidnapping.

c. A resoultion condemming Israel for Bombing Saddam’s Nuclear reactor in 1981… Even though an open state of war, with no armistice (Iraqis refused to sign after 1973) existed between the two nations.

Yasser, it is very natural to view the U.N as a source of Moral legitimacy when 22 Arab states, 59 muslim states, and 120 Oil-importing states with large and potentially violent Muslim minorities are making the resolutions….

We have 1 Jewish state that is not even permitted to take part in most of the commitees, let alone the security council. Why? Because the Group of Middle Eastern states refuses to recognize Israel and no other Regional group will have us.

And if a country votes or speak against us it does not need to fear planes crashing into their trade centers…

Tell me- if you had a business disagreement with your neighbor and the jury deliberating on the case was composed the 2 of your neighbors brothers, 3 of his cousins, and 7 of his business associates would you not call for a mistrial? especially if your neighbor had a history of blowing up the homes of people who vote or speak against him?

2. Might Vs Right.

I am aware that a common Palestinian and Arab claim is that Israel depends on force alone to back it’s claims whereas the Arabs and the Palestinians are supported by “Internationally recognized rights”. Yet, the same people who claim that (and who are willing to actually “negotiate” with us) ALSO make clear that Israel HAS no “Right” as such to exist and that it is merely an unpleasent fact which must be tolerated because of it’s millitary force. Therefore, any compromise with Israel is a humiliating exercise in giving up (temporarily) some of the “natural” Arab rights.

Without going in to the emotional response of the average red-blooded Israeli who hears this blithe and self-centered position (Grrrrrrrr %*(%&@) please consider the rational deduction Israelis must make. It goes something like this:

IF
Current Arab willingness to negotiate=derives from Israeli militar strength and does not imply any recognition of Israeli RIGHTS or past Arab WRONGS.

THEN
Concessions which REDUCE Israeli military strength= Future war to recover remaining Arab “Rights” utilizing the same WRONGS used in 1948, and 1936 and 1929 and 1564 and 670….

And unfortunately, this has been our experience between 1993-2006….

So whenever you accuse Israelis of relying on millitary force rather than respecting “International legitimacy” just remember- YOU CREATED US.

Israeli Legitimacy and “Rights”:
So as a practical solution might I ask you to state which Israeli “rights” you DO recognize?

a. Do you recognize the Balfour declaration and the post WWI decision to form a Jewish National home in palestine (which until 1923 included the Golan…) as a legitimate Jewish-Israeli “Right”?

b. Do you recognize the Partion plan of 1947 which was passed 2:1 at the UN general assembly as a legitimate Israeli “Right”?

c. Do you also recognize the 1967 242 resolution calling for Arab recognition of Israel in return for return of territories (but not ALL of THE territories) captured in June 1967?

I know Syria and the Arabs regard A and B as unjust and therefore null and void… But both were expressions of international opinion at the time before the oil power (or terror power) of the Arab world was manifested in the 70’s.

Consider what might happen to FUTURE world public opinion if an alternative to oil power were ever developed. that future IS coming in the next 30 years (if it does not all of civilization, Arab civilization included, will collapse as energy costs become prohibitively high).

As for C, which you and Syria invoke TODAY in order to claim unchallenged right to the Golan…. Yasser, Syria and the rest of the Arab League REJECTED that resolution, even so their patron, the USSR pushed it through the UN at their request.

If you view the Arab League as being RIGHT in rejecting UN and League of nations resoultions in 1922, 1947 and 1967 because they favored US then why do you think WE are morally obligated to accept them today when they favor YOU?

Claushwitz said that war is “the application of poilitics by other means”.
In truth, the UN is merely a projection of our WAR by other means. It has no intrisnic Moral meaning imbued in it (though much that it has done IS moral, including in the middle east).

The UN is a field on which the Arab world enjoys an overwhelming advantage since the 70’s… But do you realy think that will still hold true when the world moves on to an Oil independent economy?

Now Consider. From a self-interest point of view can you not see why israel
might prefer to play for time until that day comes?

“last time I checked Israel was the main source of aggression in the region ,with successive right wing governments taking power?”

Err.. no. Leaving aside the agression bit we have, since 1978, generally had alterations between right and left-wing governments Just like any other democratic country. Before that the Socialist Left was solidly in control. It makes for a certain instability and inconsistency in foreign policy but that is the price you pay for having a democracy- not that i’m SUCH a big fan but it’s still the least worst system humanity has come up with so far.

4. Who started the war in 1967?

The sequence of events was that:
a. Nasser closed the Tiran straits (Therby blocking our trade with Asia and oil imports with Iran), explled the UN observers from the Israeli-Egyptian border and threatened Israel with Fiery destruction. All inviolation of the 1956 armistice and prior UN resolutions and international agreements. Thus, by violating the 1956 armistice a state of open war between Israel and EGYPT (But not Syria, Iraq or Jordan) was LEGALLY resumed and by putting us against the wall by blocking our Oil supply he left us no choice but to take the offensive.

b. We kicked Egypt out of the Sinai.

c. Syria, jordan and Iraq all declared the 1948 armistice void (Golda begged King Hussein not to join the war but public pressure was too strong).

d. Israeli towns bordering the West Bank and the Golan heights were bombarded and Syria and Jordan moved troops to the borders, thereatening jerusalem and the Hula valley..

e. We took the Syrian positions on the Golan Heights.

Sorry mate. Nasser started the War and you decided to join in because you thought he was winning. And if you do not view closing the Tiran straits and expelling the UN troops from the border of an act of war in spite of armistice agreements and UN resolutions prohibiting it…

Well, what will you say If after we return the Golan Syria moved in an armored division, diverted the Hasbani, and prohibited israeli commercial activity in Damascus?

Again, if even you can’t admit you were WRONG in the PAST why should we believe you will respect our RIGHTS in the FUTURE?

5. “I see that your point about Hizbullah and Iran is on of the main hindrances to peace, unfortunately I have very little leverage to change that, in the present time this also relate to the nature of the current rule in Syria ,which I believe is not capable of delivering peace in its current configuration. Change is needed on our side and that’s true.”

Well here we come to the main probelm. Unless things change QUICKLY whatever hoped for liberal regime replaces Assad going to find the Israeli public too used to having the Golan to give it up or share it.

It’s been a generation and a half since 1967. Do you realy expect Israelis NOT to take pleasure, practical use, and an emotional properiatary attachment in the Golan until you have a government which will make a REAL peace with us? If Syria reaches out in the next decade and has the backing of the entire Arab world for normalization AND you are willing to be flexible with security and water concerns you might still recover the Golan. But I think the chances for that are low.

6. History, palestinians and Israel.

Yes, israel was around for a very short time… But before Israel was founded no one ever heard of the “Palestinians” including the Palestinians. That particular sub-national identity of the Arab nation formed in response to our Invasion/Return/ whatever. And while the return of the physical center of jewish existence to Israel is recent Our presence here is both ancient (about three times as long as Islam) and continuous. We just weren’t independent for the past millenium or so… Just like Syria under the mamelukes, Mongols, Crusaders, Ottomans and French.

My point is that the modern states of Israel/Syria possesed the Golan for roughly equivalent periods of time so far.

7. Irreversability and asymetrical risktaking:

maybe that’s not the way it SHOULD be. But it is the way it usually IS. Certainly that’s how it worked out in Oslo. We gave up some turf and allowed the palestinians to build a “Small” security force of 10,000 troops… and then we found out they had 80,000 but that the U.S and much of Israeli public opinion did not want to blow the peace process over it. THEN we found up the palestinians WERE willing to blow up negotiations and incidently extend in harshen the occupation in order to fight for a “right” which is both WRONG and would result in our anhaliation.

8. A final word on rights: I believe all human beings should have the right to govern themselves freely. I believe One nation does not have the right to deny another nation the possibility of livlihood. But I do NOT believe that the Golan, or any particular speck of dirt lying beyiond this or that line is moral or human rights or international law issue in and of itself.

It’s simply a matter of national prestige, emotional connection and self interest which should be worked out on a practical basis.

the Basis here is that Syria has something we want: the final seal for our formal acceptance to the region. Under the proper conditions that CAN (but not nessacarily WILL) lead to a real, as well as a formal acceptance and integration EU style.

We have something you want: The Golan.

We also want the Golan (and not nessacirly less passionately than you). We also HAVE the Golan. And Possesion in nine tenths of the Law.

I am personally willing to trade one for the other given proper assurances, arrangements and conditions (I think that doing so without resolving the palestinian issue, even if unilaterally is pointless).

Other Israelis don’t. less and less will every year. that is the bottom line.

As for Golan Druze “Resistance”.

the issue is not whether it is “legitimate” or how Syrians regard it.

The only issue from OUR moral perspective is whether we’ve given the Golan Druze a fair chance to participate equally in the israeli democaracy (we have) and whether they’ve taken us up on it (some have, some haven’t… but the trend is in our direction).

And far as practice goes if a few Druze burn tires, wave Syrian flags and take advantage of heavily subsidised university studies in Damascus occasionaly it doesn’t bother us. It’s a free country. Besides, it’s natural for them to want to have insurance in case we DO return the Golan and to keep in touch with their families in Syria.

I don’t realy think most of them give a damn. I’ve had frank face to face talks with Golan Druze, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Druze and Palestinians and I think I can tell the diffence in attitudes.

I wonder… am I the only one who sees the staggering arrogance of Arab demands?

The Arab world has tried – repeatedly – to genocide the Jews and to destroy the Jewish state.

None of them showed any sign of repenting these attempts. Quite the opposite, their rhetoric is as genocidal as it was 60 years ago.

So… the only reason we’re still alive is because we are stronger than the Arab world. They’re basically Nazi Germany that’s not organized or advanced enough to perform the genocide.

And the Arabs demand stuff from us in return for peace? This is madness!

Why should we make peace with an unrepentant genocidal enemy that we can – and do – beat back?

Why should we give the said enemy anything when we grow stronger and richer from their hate; they provide cohesion for our naturally fragmented and individualistic society; they serve as catalysts for military research and provide ample opportunities for field trials, resulting in huge profits from military technology and knowledge sales (and giving birth to the Silicon Wadi.

I am sorry if it’s a bit harsh, but, well… isn’t it so? Am I missing something?

Yes.

You are.

It doesn’t HAVE to be that way. And Arab society is not quite as monomaniacally murderous as you describe. Given the proper conditions (admittedly VERY fragile) I can see the conditions for co-existence developing.

the question is how much we are willing to risk for this admittedly slim chance and what is out breakaway strategy if it does not work. No, I do not believe we should risk it all. Or that we should approach the peace treaty from the attitude of “Just close your eyes and believe” or “if you build it it will come” . We need to make sure that if the peace treaty does NOT work we will survive and regain anything we gave up- and more.

But while unending conflict has beneficial side effects on Israeli society it also results in lack of attention to MANY long overdue overhauls we need to do in this society. And I don’t think spending 10% of our GDP on defense makes us grow richer. At best our arms exports recoup 25% of our outlay. If we didn’t have to worry about defense our brainpower driven economy would be surging FAR ahead of the EU. As it is we are straggeling at the level of Spain and Portugal.

In addition, while we have beaten back conventional Arab armies with increasing ease over the years,the new method of warfare Hezboallah/PLO/Hamas developed means we can only “win” in the future by commiting ethnic cleansing, massive slaughter of civilian population and destruction of infrastructure.

This has a price, both international and on our own collective soul. it also has a definite chance of escalation to non-conventional weaponary which CAN endanger our existence (of course we’ll fry every Muslim city between the Atlantic and the Hindu Kush before we go down but that’s not much of a consolation).

So I am willing to give peace a chance. But not much of one. And if it doesn’t work we’re just going to hunker down and ride out the storm for as long as it takes.

And Saar, While I AM Irked by Arab Arrogance I am sure that they are irked by mine. Bear in mind that we grow up in very different societies with very different base assumptions and historical narratives.

(ours is the only right one of course)

This is not unique to our region. Speaking with central Europeans I was struck how absolutely dedicated even intelligent academics were to manifestly illogical narratives. A very pretty Hungarian girl insisted to me yesterday that Transylvania was “Always” Hungarian and that only afterWWI was it “Colonized” by Rumanians- Even though Hungarians only arrived in Europe in the 9th centuary and NEVER became the Majority in Transylvania.

Poles insisted that they were “robbed” after WWII of half of poland- even though the land they lost was populated mainly by Ukrainians and White Russians (it was colonized during the Mongol occupation of Russia). They Also went on and on about the forced migration of the 3 million Poles living there- Even though they kicked out 9 million Germans from the much richer lands they gained in the West. Not to mention forcibly resseteled a remaining 1 million Ukrainians in West Central Poland to a void a “fifth Column”.

I won’t even talk about the Greek-Turkish narratives.

NO nation, and I mean none, is the villian in it’s own narrative. EVER. They were always defending the right and the Just.

The Europeans can afford that crap because their conflicts are over (Courtesy of Stalin’s Ethinic cleansing) and no one wants to repeat it.

But I think that for true Middle East peace we AND the Arabs need to recognize what we did WRONG so we know the other side won’t repeat it.

(Mostly what they did wrong of course. We are a pure as the driven snow).

For the Jews, there is only one worst crime; the Bad Thing(tm); the nigh-unforgivable sin… Genocide.

And I think it’s probably not only the Jews. So regardless of our own sins – and like any state, we have a good selection – repeated and unrepented genocide is the ultimate trump.

Regardless of moral rights and wrongs, there is the continued genocide attempt. It must be thwarted at all costs – being dead is very final.

And as for countries never admitting their wrongs… look at Germany.

I did. THEIR internal narrative is that THEY were the first victims of the Nazis (they took that title from the poor “sound of music” Austrians who were “forced” into Hitler’s Germany by a 98% plebescite….) and then the primary victims of Stalin.

The national History musem in Berlin has a whole frigging section dedicated to the psychological trauma of the airraids and the “unparraleled ethnic cleansing” of 15 million Germans and “1000 years of German history” from East of the Oder. The Nazis? Aliens from outer space who took over a befuddled Germany like in the “invasion of the body snatchers”.

The whole breast beating Mea cupla shtick is something they were forced to adopt during occupation and partition and theyv’e shed as much of it off as they could since.

As for the only ultimate crime being Genocide…. Well, that’s sort of the point. Unless we reach SOME sort of arrangement with our neighbors we may eventually be pushed into a corner will we need to choose between suffering Genocide or inflicting it.

I think we owe it to ourselves to explore every possible alternative though obviously we should excercise more caution (and also more responsibility. continuing to Build up settlements in areas we COULD NOT annex was not exactly smart or trust-building) than we did during Oslo. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Arrogance:
Youni and Saar. Let me shed some light about the arrogance you feel from Arabs towards Jews or Israelis. I am doing it as a way to understand the forces that go on shaping the misunderstanding or the enmity between Arabs and Jews. Of course I am doing it out of my personal experience or observation. I do not claim I know or understand all the forces but I know more than enough and most probably I know the principles:
• It starts at an early age when you start hearing popular religious stories in your community whether from peers’ talk or when you are sitting with grownups. You are introduced to stories from the religious history about the wars of profit Mohamed with the infidels and the Jews. The Jew is always pictured as an unethical, treacherous and hateful person who was always plotting against the Prophet wanting to kill him and harming Muslims. Even on religious occasions like Ramadan or Haj the T.V will be full of programs demonizing the Jew and supporting the popular stories or just manifestation of the popular religious stories.
• Then, if for some reason, you start learning religion the first thing you are taught, if you are a Muslim, is that Christians have lost the true road to proper religion and that Jews are cursed by God. This is the first thing you learn in religion. In the course of the teaching you will be bombarded with hundreds of stories about how Prophet faced the Jews and how they plotted against him in the early history of Islam. Not to mention the mentioning of the book “Elders of Zion” and the story where Jews prepare ritual cookies mixed with the blood of Arab children.
• When you start reading, Islamists and Palestinians will start providing you with reading material that will speak of Jews as ET’s from outside the Middle East who came to “Palestine” and massacred its people. They will go into vivid details telling you how the Jews and Zionists butchered Women and Children, cut the bellies of pregnant Palestinian women and butchered the babies in their mothers’ wombs or how did they butchered babies in the hands of their mothers.
• You might come at a movie or 2 which will show a Jewish teacher that would pound the head of a 4 years child on the black board, until she dies of course, just because she says “Palestine is Arabic”. Of course then the father of the girl, who happens to be a Fidaii, would come and kill the teacher with his bare hand.
• I will leave it to your judgment what would such stories, TV programs, teachings, literature and movies do to the Child’s mind. I do not know when all this demonizing process start but I was born listening to it and even when I distant myself from environments that would keep me in touch with such demonizing process but I still can identify it all over the society.
• Not everybody is lucky or deliberate enough to snap out from this demonizing brainwashing process. You go in life, in Arab countries, where as every bad thing is attributed to the Zionist-Jewish plot. Don’t kid yourself, Arabs do not really discriminate Jews from Zionists. It is only a bullshit rhetoric, the word is used interchangeably even by Christian Arabs. You go in life, hearing absurd and silly stuff which reflects how much is the Arab mind being brainwashed to hate Jews and despise them. Even the most intelligent Arab minds will repeat stupid rhetoric and contribute to the brain washing – demonizing process. For example, When a very famous Arab singer was accused of saying that Sudanese girls are not beautiful he declared that he did not say so and that he would not be surprised if the “Zionist enemy” was behind such rumors so as to rift the bonds and ties among Arabs. Or when an Engineer I know, while working near a road which witnessed so many accidents and deaths in one Arab country, told me that he thinks that the road was designed by a “Jew” aiming at killing as many Muslims as possible. I thought he was kidding me, he told me he was not kidding. You go on hearing all sorts of similar stupid remarks.
• When Emirate Prince established an institution for peace, the Arab researchers or contributors in that establishment turned it into an institution producing anti-Semitic literature and it became a gathering place of Anti-Semites and Nazis from all over the world. The institution ended up being close.
• It is not easy snapping out from the demonizing process occurring against Jews. Everything a Jew, a Zionist or an Israeli does is given one meaning aiming at supporting the demonizing process. Analysis of the actions or words will always be twisted to help demonizing Jews-Zionists. Sometimes I get amazed by the ability of some to twist the meaning or actions.
• It is amazing the amount of lies that would be accepted in this demonizing process. Lies like that the security wall will annex 70 % of the west bank to Israel goes unchallenged. Lies like that Israel massacred hundreds or thousands of civilians in Jenin goes unchallenged. Incredible Palestinian propaganda passes with ease in the brains of the Arab populace and becomes facts in the minds of Arabs. Lies like Zionists exporting radiated belts aiming at sterilizing Arab men goes unchecked and is repeated in media and even by leaders. I heard it.

What is the purpose of what I said above?
• Yoni the Arabs you talk to are the ones who know you better and who have more knowledge about the existence of a human Jew.
• The further you go away from the Jewish center the more demonic view of Jews become. Arabs do not recognize Jews as normal humans. You have rare cases like in Jordan only.
• Most Arabs, and I mean like 99%, do not recognize the right of Jews to exist, live and prosper in Israel. They do not recognize Jews as normal human beings.
• The arrogance that you feel from Arabs is because they do not recognize Jews as humans as themselves, because they have adopted a heavenly mission or duty to drive Jews out of Israel and because they imagine moral right over Jews in Israel.
• The funny part is that many Jews do not help because they display an apologetic or guilt feelings. However, I will explain myself further later on. This section is just to explain the arrogance you feel from Arabs all over the Arab world.
Yoni, you trigger many subjects by your writings and I apologize for accumulating of many unanswered issues that you mentioned. I did not ignore them but I am doing it bit by bit. Hope for your patience. Thanks for getting my hint and… we will keep talking.

well ,it seems we are having DIRECT peace negotiations right here and right now
that in itself a positive thing.
My position is that the border of 4th of July INCLUDE what you describe as the demilitarized area of 1948.Syria gained independence in1946 two years before Israel was established, so ,if as you say the UN doesn’t recognize this area as Syrian ,can you tell me please to whom this area was belonging according to the UN ,there are two options :1 to Syria 2 to PALESTINE
Definitely not to Israel ,you see the problem with you is you always complain about how Arabs don’t recognize your right to exist ,the thing is you are not willing to admit that the Palestinians EVER EXISTED!

And that Syria didn’t even HAVE effective control of the areas it lays claim to in june 4th 1967?

I believe this argument of effective control relates to the mentality of setting up settlements to claim other peoples lands which you excels so much in:)

Claim to territory is not about who took over which part and when ,you need to have some minimum binding historical and demographical consistency, you see I have a question for you ,why Israel have no borders ?
Do you think that makes Israel more or less likely to be recognized by the Arab world and the whole international community?
Please answer bearing in mind that those questions have the best intentions when I ask them (it is not an attack ,just a simple question)

You have very fluid and no clear borders because you discard any historical and demographic facts prior to the establishment of your state.

1. International legitimacy, UN resolutions and all that Jazz:

Refer to my questions about Israel border.

2. Might Vs Right.

Well ,let me lay down some facts for you ,of those arabs you describe, there are the Palestinians and then there are four nations have boundaries with Israel ,two of those have signed a formal peace treaty that ends the hostility between you and them and has agreed to full recognition of Israel existence , the other two ,well ,you have Lebanon which is the most liberal country in this east ,and was it not for the minority of Hizbullah ,you most probably would be two very closed allies:)
And Syria havn’t fired a single shot at Israel since the armistice deal was signed ,then you have the gulf states (of course iraq is no problem because the government is set up by your ally the U.S) those states have not direct grievances with Israel and possess a growing potential economically and financially ,Saudi Arabia who is considered to represent them ( and the whole of the arab countries in the ME and north Africa) has proposed the Arab peace intiative in which it states that Israel will have full recognition if it return arab rights ( yes I used the word rights instead of land)
You seem to be living in the 70 and 80 ,things have changed ,take a look around you .

a. Do you recognize the Balfour declaration and the post WWI decision to form a Jewish National home in palestine (which until 1923 included the Golan…) as a legitimate Jewish-Israeli “Right”?

It is of two things 1- you are recognizing the existence of Palestine ,and then we (Syrians)would not have a problem in the first place if the dispute was between Syria and Palestine.
2- you are distorting the facts as the Balfour declaration(which is in no way binding to us or have any international legitimacy) did not promise all Palestine to establish a Jewish state it was intended to give the jewish people a state IN Palestine not IN ALL of Palestine .that is a response to your very accurate approach when you mention that UNSC resolution 242 stated the return of territories (but not ALL of THE territories) captured in June 1967.

Syria and the rest of the Arab League REJECTED that resolution, even so their patron, the USSR pushed it through the UN at their request.

I don’t really know what to say ,how we are going to reject a resolution that states and demands the return of our rights that were taken by force .how we requested the USSR to advance the resolution then object to it …doesn’t make sense ,does it?

In truth, the UN is merely a projection of our WAR by other means. It has no intrisnic Moral meaning imbued in it (though much that it has done IS moral, including in the middle east).

Well ,lets agree to disagree on the moral obligation the UN have over member states ,the thing about that much of what has the UN done is moral is right and I think backs my position ,however don’t forget the numerous statements and resolutions that got blocked by your ally’s (the U.S) vetos, I think those vetos were outrageous and unfair and only give Israel the green light to continue its humiliation and disregard for basic human rights of the Palestinians.

About right wing v.s left wing . well I am talking not in political terms but in how hardline and extreme the positions taken by Israel governments ,take a look back and see Sharon has started the Intifada ,and stopped negotiations with Syria ,Olmert attacked Lebanon and maintained a hard-line position against Syria and now we have Livni who promises to abandon indirect peace negotiations with Syria and focus on the Palestinian track (to deny more Palestinian rights that is) .and with the problem of nuclear iran looming its ugly head ,I don’t know how you are going to manage without a vision of peae.

4. Who started the war in 1967?

I’ll give you a simple very reasonable proposition, lets forget about the past and yes ,I believe we are guilty of doing some wrongs ,but again who is not. lets open a clean slate and have our eyes on the future.

Well here we come to the main probelm. Unless things change QUICKLY
whatever hoped for liberal regime replaces Assad going to find the Israeli public too used to having the Golan to give it up or share it.

I’ll tell you something that I am sure will make you smile.
See, the Lebanese should be very grateful for Assad ,they are demanding that we give them the Shebaa farms and Alassad being very soft and politically unexperienced ,they actually have a good chance snatching that piece of land from Syria whereas ,if there were a true patriotic rule in place, believe me the Lebanese will not dream of smelling the scent of Shebaa farms soil ,no democratically elected government that respect itself will agree to give away an inch of Syrian land to a foreign country , so this is actually the best time for you if you want to draw concessions because the rule is weak ,doesn’t have true public support and lacks leadership and clear strategic vision.

6. History, palestinians and Israel.
Yes, israel was around for a very short time… But before Israel was founded no one ever heard of the “Palestinians” including the Palestinians.

WHAT!!!
I wish Ramzi reads this I am sure he can answer you better than me.

7. Irreversability and asymetrical risktaking:

You have given me an irrelevant example to demonstrate your point(Oslo agreement) there is very big difference between Syria and the issue with the Palestineans ,we are an independent country with established institutions like Egypt and Jordan so your argument is misplaced.

8. A final word on rights: I believe all human beings should have the right to govern themselves freely. I believe One nation does not have the right to deny another nation the possibility of livlihood. But I do NOT believe that the Golan, or any particular speck of dirt lying beyiond this or that line is moral or human rights or international law issue in and of itself.

I see your point and I share your view to a certain extent .but please I ask you again to answer my question about Israel borders because it relates to this point.

I say we really can do much in terms of stopping dehumanizing and demonizing the other side and it is a very important step especially in the Syrian Israeli track I know that we are guilty as much as you are guilty of that .

i did not read your full answer Yaser, but only the begining. Tell me Yaser, why do you think Israel should return to 4th of June 1967 line and not to the borders of mandate Syria or mandate “Palestine”? Why do you think Syria should retain the “Palestinian” territories and not stay to its international border lines? Is it right? might? etc…

“The further you go away from the Jewish center the more demonic view of Jews become.”

I’ve noticed that. Sub-Saharan African Muslims and Morrocan Arabs (who did not know I was a Jew) had a far more inhuman and supernatural image of Jews than Palestinians and Israeli Arabs I was in contact with (who have a LOT more to be angry at).

Interestingly, a study carried out on racism and predjudice among Israeli-jewish children five years ago found that settler children actually had far LESS negative stereotypes and dehumanizing attitudes about Arab children- simply because they saw them on a regular basis.

Some simplistic and “Us Vs Them”/”Children of Light Vs Children of Darkness” are common to all cultures.

The difference is that our educational system and society offer a variety of viewpoints (including that of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs) so that a certain capacity for critical thinking develops in those who are capable of it.

One of the often repeated and often violated commitments of the palestinian authority during the Oslo years was to reform their educational system (inherited from Jordan) to de-demonize Israel and the Jews. Unfortunately, the opposite process took place as the palestinian national narrative is pretty much built as an “anti-Israel” reaction.

Is there any way this can change?

Unfortunately regular contact and interaction does not appear to be the answer. While it humanized the other tribe it also creates friction and very human jealousies and resentments.

Ibraheem ,
i wasn’t suggesting that Syria takes over any palestinean land , I just wanted to draw attention that the international border between Syria and Palestine ,shows that the Syrian side contained the demiliterized area on the coast of the Kinnert which Yoni refered to .

Yasser,

“Syria gained independence in1946 two years before Israel was established, so ,if as you say the UN doesn’t recognize this area as Syrian ,can you tell me please to whom this area was belonging according to the UN ,there are two options :1 to Syria 2 to PALESTINE
Definitely not to Israel ”

As you correctly state Syria became independent in 1946… and did NOT include the “june 4th”/Demillitarized zone. So the DMZ did NOT belong to Syria.

As far as the DMZ goes it WAS included in the ISRAELI portion of the 1947 UN partition plan (the one the Arab league rejected). It was inhabited and cultivated by the Jews living in the Hula Valley and the Kinneret PRIOR to the 1948 war. So YES, the UN DID recognise this Area as Israeli. So it did NOT belong to Palestine and the PA NEVER asked for it during negotiations. That does not mean YOU have a legal claim to it.

Just because Syria became independent 2 years before us does NOT mean it somehow has automatic claim to any part of mandatory Palestine, certainly not to a part that was Jewish inhabited and legally awarded to Israel. I’m afraid I simply cannot see you logic here.

In fact the Syrian claim rests on MIGHT rather than RIGHT. namely that you conquered the zone in 1948 and thefore wish to claim it today. But even this is not true.

Syria temporarily occupied the zone during the 1948 war. But after we knocked Egypt out of the war by invading the Northern Sinai, Lebanon out by advancing on the Litani, and reached an accomadation with Jordan Syria was left alone in the war and we moved sufficient forces to the Hula to not only kick Syria out (a relatively minor part of the war) but also to take the Golan. Syria turned to the UN to prevent a humiliation and a deal was brokered according to which Syrian troops would withdraw to the INTERNATIONAL 1923 border. Israel agreed not to move troops in, allowing Syria to save face and hopefully paving the way to a peace agreement (impossible since the Syrian government suffered half a dozen millitary coups over the next 4 years).

Syria attempted to prevent the jewish Kibutzim cultivation of the areas by artillary bombardement. It never fully succeeded and certainly did not cultivate the zone or occupy it with troops. We did.

So from the viewpoints of both Might AND right the DMZ was ours PRIOR to 1967. We certainly hold it today. So what is your current claim based on?
“if as you say the UN doesn’t recognize this area as Syrian ,can you tell me please to whom this area was belonging according to the UN ,there are two options :1 to Syria 2 to PALESTINE”

By this definition what differentiates the DMZ from the Hula? Or the Galliele? Or tel-Aviv? And if the answer is nothing why in God’s name should we accept your argument?
Look, this is realy the heart of the Issue. Either you recognize that we have a RIGHT to pre-1967 Israel or you tell us that you are only recognizing our MIGHT. And if you only recognize our MIGHT then why should we reduce it, and with it your recognition?
I realy want a coherent answer to this since this is the heart of the matter.
Other points:

1. Israeli borders:
We do not have any borders recognized by the Arab world because YOU never recognized any! Nor did you recognize Israel. Israel did not appear on Arab maps until very recently (and still does not on many). You did not recognise the borders of the 1947 partiton plan and you did not recognise the pre-1967 borders. So your logic is circular.
The application of Israeli law defines Israel’s borders internally as pre-1967 Israel+the Golan (since 1981) while leaving the future border with the West bank up to negotiations. Personally I am in favor of defining it unilaterally since the palestinians refusal to give up on the right of return nullifies any chance of succesful negotiations. Would that satisfy you?

2. Might Vs Right.
If I understand your point correctly you are saying that since we HAVE working peace arrangements with Jordan and Egypt following the restoration of their “Rights” That model should also work with Syria.
The difference is that in the case of Egypt:
a. The Peace treaty did not weaken out MIGHT or carry a significant risk since having the Sinai as a demilitarized buffer zone is actually in some respect MORE militarily advantageous to us than keeping forces on the Suez canal. Due to the SIZE of the Sinai it would take Egyptian ground forces up to 72 hours to reach Israel in coherent shape. During that time our Airforce, which would be operating over a region with no fixed anti aircraft emplacements could slaughter them and the reserves which are the mainstay of the IDF mobilized. This is in some ways preferable to being able to threaten the Suez and Cairo directly from over a long supply line with costly regular army troops.
What we did give up in giving up the Sinai was national prestige, breathing space, valuable resources (OIL!), practice zones for our Airforce, the ability to place pressure on Egypt Via the Suez Canal, etc. To some extent this was counterbalanced by massive American aid to Israel AND Egypt (they wanted the Suez canal kept open for obvious reasons).

b. the vast spaces of the Sinai mean that little or no friction exists between the Israeli and Egyptian populations rendering future hostility and escalation less likely. There is simply nothing to fight about. The same would not occur in the Golan. If the Palestinian example is anything to go by we are probably going to have trouble with upstream water pollution to start with.
In the case of Jordan we gave up nothing since they had no territorial claims, having unfortunately relinquished claims to the West Bank (I wish they hadn’t).

As far of Lebanon goes the fact that they are STILL attacking us and making bogus claims to territory which is either part of the Golan or Mandatory Palestine (The Seven Shia villages traded to the mandate for the Golan given to the French in 1923) renders any Idea of “Rights” ending attacks on us false. So does the aftereffect of the Gaza withdrawal.

Iraq is going to BE a problem after the U.S leaves since the Shiites will ally with Iran which will probably play one faction against the other just as Syria did in Lebanon.
And as far as the Saudi proposal goes I already said my problem with it. #2 and #3.

3. Balfour declaration:
I am afraid I did not understand how your reply #1 relates to this.
As far as #2 goes:
The Balfour declaration was adopted as the basis for the British mandate which was awarded by the league of nations- the UN’s precursor. It is as binding, legal and Moral as current U.N resolutions (which is to say not at all). You can’t recognize the moral validity of one and not the other.
Said mandate determined that:
a. Jewish immigration and land purchase within the mandate (Including Mandatory Palestine, Jordan and the Golan) would be protected.
b. Jews would be permitted to set up pre-national institutions for self government as a prelude to transfer of sovereignty.
c. Britain was FORBIDDEN to transfer any portion of the Mandate to a third party or to create administrative divisions in it- INCLUDING the Golan. So, yes. The Balfour declaration and the Mandate AS WRITTEN do award All of Palestine,
Jordan AND the Golan to a future Jewish state.

Now I am not trying to argue the Balfour declaration was “Just” or “right”. Nor am I claiming that you SHOULD have accepted it back then. Or that it somehow invalidates all LATER resolutions. What I am saying is that International “Law” and “Justice” are fluid concepts.

Before the 70’s when the Arab “Oil Power” and “Terror Power” were revealed the international community had one opinion. Today it has another. Tomorrow? Who knows?
It has relatively little (not nothing) to do with morality or justice. It has everything to do with expediency, fear and power. But insofar as it DOES has anything to do with morality I would point out that a resolution favoring 10 million people with no control of world energy supplies or history of threatening those who vote against them with indiscriminate violence was PROBABLY more motivated by “Moral” concerns than resolutions favoring 300 million (1.2 Billion if you count all Muslims) people sitting on 70% of the world’s oil supply who have been the source of scores of Plane Hijackings, Bombings etc.

4. Rejection of 242:
The resolution was the result of a desperate attempt by the Arab states to end the war before we made further territorial acquisitions. Israel insisted (supported by the Non-Soviet and Muslim members) that any call for ceasefire and territorial return include and BE CONDITIONED on Arab Recognition of Israel (due to experience in 1948 and 1956 where withdrawal from territory did not prevent future wars).
It was THIS article which ALL of the Arab league rejected in the Khartoum conference.
See the attached document:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14841/khartoum_resolution.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2Fpublication_list%3Fpage%3D288
Notice the no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no recognition of Israel in section 3….

Again the point is not that the Arab Rejection renders the Resolution not binding today (though I COULD make that point). Merely, that the Arab states have blithely disregarded Resolutions that recognized Israeli RIGHTS- and only accepted them after Israel demonstrated that it had the MIGHT to protect it’s RIGHTS.

So again, if you have a problem with how we are today… you MADE us.

5. UN:
Don’t realy think you answered my point. In any event you may well consider that in the 50’s and 60’s before the Arab world unveiled the Oil weapon it was the USSR and Britain vetoing resolutions condemming the Arabs and calling for peace and recognition of Israel. At that time most Non-Muslim countries favored Israel or were neautral. When did that change? Why? And if you only changed your international position through threats and economic blackmail what does that mean about your argument?

Have you ever considered WHY the U.S vetoes resolutions condemming Israel dispropotionately? We have no oil. We don’t threaten terror attacks on them if they vote against us. So why? What do they gain? Think about it for a bit and try to avoid circular logic or preassumptions. Could it be that it is because those resolutions are themselves outrageously unfair and encourage the Palestinians to avoid compromise and peace with Israel? Because those big lunks actually DO care about RIGHT over MIGHT?

6. Right Vs Left:
Sharon STARTED the Intifada? That would have taken some doing given that he was not a prime minister or a member of the government at the time. He was elected 4 months AFTER the Intifada started because Barak’s concessions at camp David and Taba were met with massive Palestinian violence and demands for the dissolution of Israel Via the right of return.

And I think you have your sequence mixed up with Olmert as well. Are you claiming Israel attacked Lebanon BEFORE hezboallah shelled the border villages and Kidnapped our soldiers? Or that this attack was legitimate and that the response was not? I would rather like to know your answer since it has some bearing on how a peace treaty with Syria would work if we withdrew to the International border only to meet further attacks…

Likewise, Begin was elected on the background of Arab rejectionism and display of weakness By labor in staged unilateral withdrawal from the Sinai. But when Arab positions change or seem to change we elect people more suited to compromise- or the people we have already change THEIR positions (Begin’s return of the Sinai to Sadat after his visit to Jerusalem).

Unfortunately, Leftist leaders in israel have a very bad record since 1993 of REDUCING the security of Israeli citizens by not being tough enough resulting in the election of hardliners who improve security but refuse to compromise on political issues resulting in reduction of peace prospects resulting in the election of leftist leaders who reduce security resulting in the election of hardliners…..

7. Iran
I am afraid the only way to deal with a nuclear Iran is to bomb Iran. If necessary with our own Nukes. It would be better if the U.S were to cut a deal for removing sanctions and acceptance into the family of nations in return for an end of Nuclear enrichment. I don’t see that happening.

8. 1967:
I am willing not to discuss this but I think that is the wrong way to go. Unless past wrongdoings on BOTH sides are admitted we have no assurance they will not be repeated. If the other side does not view them as wrong why should he NOT repeat them?

9. Negotiations now Vs later…
Yeah the trouble is that an insecure regime is also less able to make compromise or concessions because it is more dependent on legitimacy through militancy…
“If I am weak how can I compromise? And If I am strong WHY should I compromise?”….
The Idea that the weakness of the Alawite rule and it’s urgent need for Western Money and investment makes NOW (or 2002 or 2000…) a window of opportunity where effective security arrangement, territorial compromise and normalization can all be achieved has been tried in Shepardstown 2000 and later.

We Got Farouk A-Shara.

10. History, Palestinains and Israel:
I agree.

It would be better if an Israeli and Palestenian rather than an Israeli and Syrian discussed this.

My point however was not that the Palestinians were not PHYSICALY here prior to our arrival/return but that a separate Palestinian national Identity and culture developed in response to the events of 1922-1967. Had Israel been defeated and partitioned in 1948 I do not think Syria, Jordan Lebanon or Egypt would have faced an Intifada or that the Arabs Of Tiberias would have resented Syrian rule any more than the Arabs of Haleb.

Prior to 1917 the Identities and loyalties in the fertile crescent were pan-Islamic (to the Caliph in Istanbul), Pan-Arab, Tribal, Secretarian (Maronite, Druze Alawite), Local(Damascus/haleb), or regional (greater Syria). They had nothing to do with modern national Boundaries.

11. Irreversability and asymetrical risktaking:Differences between Syria and Palestinians.
You have a point. But only up to a point. It assumes the second Intifada was a result of passion and frustaration overcoming Insecure institutions rather than a calculated move BY those institutions.
My assessment does not agree with that. And we have seen cases (such as the 1967 war) where the sentiment of the street drove even organized Arab countries to war against the immediate inclinations of their rulers.

12. Final words on rights/Final borders:
You have my answer on what I consider legitimate final borders with Syria (1923 international border) and the conditions under which I would agree to them. but I openly say that absent an agreement I would view our CURRENT borders with Syria as legitimate as they were acquired in a defensive war and do not involve any demographic/Moral contradiction to basic human rights or Israeli democracy. The issue of withdrawal is soley pragmatic- is NORMALIZATION (not peace) with the Arab world worth giving up the Golan (to me yes).

In other words if my leaders bring me a peace agreement along the lines I described I would vote for it. But if they thought it was unfeasible or desirable or if the Israeli electorate rejected such an agreement I would not fight for it. We have bigger things to worry about.

Excellent point about Germany, Yoni. I am convinced.

Allow me to present a defense of eternal war as the solution to the Israeli-Arab issue:

1 Our wars are comparatively cheap in costs of lives and expenditure.

1.1 Moreover, the economy is built in such a way that it is actually strengthened by a war (like the rise after Lebanon War II). And that is conventional or semi-conventional (as LW2) wars:

1.2 The protracted war of terrorism containment bore excellent fruit, and we lose almost no lives or property to terrorists in recent years. Completion of both the security barrier and automation of patrols and outposts are further reducing these costs.

1.3 Moreover, the rise of global terrorism created lucrative markets for Israeli counter-terrorism expertise and technology. Which brings me to the next point:

2 Israeli economy was held back by socialism, not wars. We have the comparatively low standard of living for roughly the same reasons as the Czech Republic.

2.1 Keeping that in mind, let us note that these 10% of the budget are not thrown into a black hole – they bring results other than our continued existence:

2.1.1 Israel’s high-tech was accidentally spawned by the army.

2.1.2 The best source of quality programmers in Israel is MMRM and 8200;

2.1.3 The vast variety of courses soldiers go through during their service adds to the skilled workforce;

2.1.4 The Military is a major technology contractor, creating both directly military technologies and whole swarms of spin-offs. Conflicts are notorious catalysts of creativity.

3 I believe that Israel’s economy is currently passing through a transitory stage – and it’s at a steady upward trajectory, as it has been on for some time now.

Having said all that, I do not believe that war is preferable to peace. Losing lives is horrible by definition; it consumes a whole lot of resources; it creates unnecessary tensions; and it’s an unpleasant experience for all those directly involved.
Without war we would have been better off.

But, well, we should take the difference in quality of life with and without war as a measure of how much we gain from peace.

And knowing our risks and gains, we can make a reasonably calculated decision on whether we should pursue peace and how much are we willing to pay for it.

Personally, I say WE should be paid for it. The sitra akhra (pardon the pun) stands to gain so much more from peace, the whole deal doesn’t make sense.

On a whole different subject, the thermonuclear annihilation of Persia would be an unimaginably horrible event. Truly apocalyptic. It might be that we will have no choice but to do it… but the world will be scarred for centuries. Not something anyone would do unless they knew we face certain nuclear strike against us and we have no other way to prevent it.

The good news is that Iran is kind of sick. From violent ethnic tensions to ailing economy to rising unemployment and catastrophic drug abuse -
not to mention political and cultural dissent all over the spectrum -,
Iran looks like it could suddenly die and be reborn as Persia one fine morning. And it wouldn’t be a day too soon.

Ibraheem – and despite all that, there are still sane Arabs around! Which is why I am optimistic in general about the future. Humans are like ‘roaches – they always find a way to thrive. And with them, thrive Raccoons

Even Arab society changes. Eventually it will change in a good direction. I just hope a solution for this whole aging thing will be found really soon, because I’d love to be around when it happens.

Yasser, all the talk you are talking is based on pure academic and political rhetoric that can be applied only through the power that Syria might have or when Syria, people and government, could show that it could genuinely give real warm peace to the Israeli people. Both situations do not currently exist.
However, I have 2 street sense ideology bubble busters for you. Tell me how would your logic, which I did not labor to comprehend since it is an obsolete game of words, apply to the Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian borders in Shebaa. We all know that in the sixties, and prior to the 1967 war Syrian army ravished Shebaa farms and drove the Lebanese ISF away and occupied it only to lose it to Israel in 1967. Same like Syria did in 1948 in Golan with mandate Palestine. Without going into the game of words, my horse sense tells me all your logic collapses with this fact. Sorry for not following your logic step by step because the type of work I do shapes my mind to be practical rather than getting in word games. My ideas are only as strong as the tools in my hand to execute them.
That was the first ideology bubble buster. Now, I know that Syria deals with Lebanon not based on international laws but based on one street sense or conception it has about Lebanon. Syria treats Lebanon as a historical mistake in which Lebanese territories were cut out from Syria and Lebanon was created. All the policies of Syria towards Lebanon revolved around this concept and it has overridden any international law that manages the relationship between 2 neighboring countries. I have similar logic to you; if in 1948 there were around 50,000 Jews among Syrian population of 4 million Syrians. You can correct the numbers if you want. Those 50,000 had rights in Syrian territories and fortune in the ration of 1.25 %. Syrian government chose to desyrianize them and made them leave not treating them like normal citizens. In fact the Syrian government used to give their homes to the Palestinian refugees. So don’t you think it is logical that Syrian Jews have the right to annex 1.25 % of the Syrian land to Israel? After all, Syrian government treated them as Israelis.
Don’t worry Yasser, nobody among Israelis think in such a way but it is something to burst your ideological bubble. I do not think the Israeli collective memory or mentality entertain such logic. LOL it is an Arab tribal logic, but who knows somebody might start using it as a negotiating tool. How would you answer to such logic? I like to know.

And another related issue Yasser. How does the issue of Alexandaron fit into your logic Yasser? How does it fit the logic of right and might. I am not bringing it up from the angle that others use it. It is not a call from my side for war with Turkey, or as a means of telling you to be consistent with your logic. Meaning i am not telling you to forget Golan since you have forgetting Alexandaraon. My whole theme revolves around one issue Yasser: I think the only way to regain Golan is when the Syrian populace and Government display an inclination for a gneuine warm peace with Israel. This is the only way i see it possible in the case of Syria.

I see that we are drifting from the main purpose to a geopolitical argument ,first a word to Ibraheem,it maybe true that I talk in political terms /rhetoric ,but that is an inherent part (apparently ) of the problem of the Golan between Syria and Israel.and c’mon you should be on my side:)
Here is the timeline of events:

1. between 1922and 1923
in 1922 after WWI the league of nations handed the Golan to the British mandate of Palestine ,and in 1923 the British gave up the Golan to the French mandate in Syria.

2. the year 1949
In may 1948 Israel was established and then we have the arab nations invading ,which resulted in the armistice agreement of 1949,the 1949 armistice line shows that the DMZ was in the Syrian side .

3. between 1949 and 1967
The armistice deal stipulate in article five that the DMZ was not either under Syrian sovereignty OR ISRAELI SOVERIGNITY. And included areas that were controlled by Israelis and some arab villages in it .and there were many skirmishes between the two sides on control of water resources and military reinforcements .so I turn the question back at you .if the DMZ was not under Syrian sovereignty( not part of mandate Syria) why should it be( in contradiction to the armistice deal) under Israeli rule,I believe here I am using logic not relying on MIGHT as you have accused me.

4. 1967 war.
Israel invaded the Golan in the last two days of the war ,the primary object was according to military experts and decision makers in Israel ( refer to Mosheh Dayan diaries) is to have control of this very important piece of land economically and strategically ,as using the west bank for agricultural was hard and so the eyes of Israelis were directed for the Golan for its richness in water resources and fertile land ,please don’t portray yourself as the ultimate victim here.

5.1973.
In the 6 th of October the Syrian forces advanced towards the Golan heights and managed to liberate most of it before suffering from a counter attack which diminished the gains that were achieved.

I’ll confine my claim to the area occupied by Israel in the 1967 war ,I’ll even further and only demand a return to the 1932 boundries.

Might Vs Right

This is only one version of the argument for peace ,even in Israel itself you find people having a different viewpoint than the one you mention, you may be familiar with it however I’ll summarize the key points:

1.the resolution of the conflict between Syria and Israel ,will remove a major obstacle to reaching a regional settlement which will open the door for israel’s integration and acceptance in the region.

2. Syria has always kept its commitment towards international law and agreements signed by it .

3.in concern to settlements , I think the Syrian part should be more flexible when dealing with this issue and I think the major population gathering(kitsren/capital of the Golan as you say) should not be dismantled, but rather kept as a testament to coexistence between Arabs and Israelis

4. security arrangements( even if on the surface doesn’t have enough assurances to counter a Syrian attack ) are a preferable option than maintaining an endless state of war between the two countries which is exhausting both economically and psychologically.

5. land is no guarantee for security ,to deny that line of reasoning is to ask your
government to occupy all the ME!.

International law

So if as you say the Balfour declaration doesn’t invalidates all later resolutions why have you offered all sorts of arguments to deny that UNSC resolution 242 is binding to Israel ,and why should Israel not adhere by it , and you are asking me to recognize the Balfour Declaration .excuse me but this seems biased and hypocritical.
I believe you cannot be selective when it comes to international law that way it will not be fluid (in your mind ) any more.

the Arab states have blithely disregarded Resolutions that recognized Israeli RIGHTS- and only accepted them after Israel demonstrated that it had the MIGHT to protect it’s RIGHTS.
This is maybe right, and I don’t approve of our blinded rejection to past compromises, which have lead to so many catastrophes, but your line of reasoning concerning the Balfour declaration shows that you are guilty of that too.

Arab “Oil Power” and “Terror Power”

I don’t know what threats and economic blackmail you are talking about. This is far exaggerated and shows lack of respect and thus unwillingness to accept the other part .you are making outrageous blanket judgment about ALL Arabs of which a large part don’t have oil reserves , almost all of the arabs object to terrorist tactics (and are victim of terrorists ).
There are many educated, and civilized Arabs who by far surpass your criteria of civilized as demonstrated by your treatment of the Palestinians and people under your occupation (which violates all human rights ) the matter which you always have avoided to address in this thread.

Right Vs Left:

I knew you would jump on for writing this ,I knew what happened chronically( in regard to the intifada and to the Lebanon war).I know the causes and who triggered what.
But again as I read in a recent interview with Syrian ambassador to the U.S , I don’t share his vision about the Israel government is the one who have to convince its people of the necessity of peace ,I think we have an obligation to demonstrate to Israelis that peace is a better option ,and maybe that way give them a window that they can utilize to curb their government arrogance and disregard for the other part ( of which your successive governments are surly guilty of).

. Iran
I am afraid the only way to deal with a nuclear Iran is to bomb Iran. If necessary with our own Nukes.

I have one word for you.. CRAZY!!
Are talking for real, please give me a break ,you are deceiving your self with this illusion of how to stop Iran’s nuclear threat with military power.
To be honest I really despise Iran for two reasons:

1- it wants to remove Israel from the map of the world ,yes you are reading right ,/I not only accept Israel right to exist ,but also reject those who don’t accept it.

2- its fanatic rule who beats and terrorize women who refuse to wear Hijab, this for me is revolting.

That being said ,I believe that diplomacy can do the trick ,and we can negotiate our way to avoid this catastrophe you are talking about.
I also have a word for you to think about : double standards , you are confessing that you have the nuclear capacity and are willing to use it ,how do you think that squares with ordinary Arab citizen ( an inhabitant of this region ) reading this ,you have to admit that at the very least it makes us a little apprehensive .

1967:
I am willing not to discuss this but I think that is the wrong way to go. Unless past wrongdoings on BOTH sides are admitted we have no assurance they will not be repeated. If the other side does not view them as wrong why should he NOT repeat them?

I agree tottaly.

Negotiations now Vs later

Yeah the trouble is that an insecure regime is also less able to make compromise or concessions because it is more dependent on legitimacy through militancy…

This is partly true, an insecure regime is less able to make a compromise ,but certainly is more inclined to offer concessions to maintain its power through outside support which a peace deal will certainly give it.
To have a strong rule in Syria will pave the way to reaching the peace of the brave ,but I just wanted by raising this is to say that the ball is not always in our court! You have to do your part in moving towards peace and not be entrenched in your position ,waiting for what is going to happen as you have advocated many times before.

History, Palestinains and Israel:
My point however was not that the Palestinians were not PHYSICALY here prior to our arrival/return but that a separate Palestinian national Identity and culture developed in response to the events of 1922-1967.

I strongly disagree ,to base my argument better ,I would ask you to tell my your position of the two states solution ( it appears that you do not support this solution as you deny the existence of a Palestinian collective nationality which is the basis upon which a Palestinian state would be founded)

Irreversability and asymetrical risktaking:Differences between Syria and Palestinians.
My assessment does not agree with that. And we have seen cases (such as the 1967 war) where the sentiment of the street drove even organized Arab countries to war against the immediate inclinations of their rulers.

But your assessment doesn’t account to the fact that your peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan is still holding just fine, again you have to accept blame for the misfortune of the Palestinians and stop absolving yourself of any responsibility in that regard.

Final words on rights/Final borders:

You also have my answer on the territory claim by Syria to land that was legally belong to her and was occupied by a war of aggression. and one more point ,you speak about the Druze population of the Golan ,well let me remind you that the Golan had many other ethnic groups (arabs ,arminians ,kurds) in addition to the Druze community and your authorities has forced them to evacuate their lands, and imposed your laws upon the rest, in violation of international law.

One thing is positive is that you are open to consider the peace option ,but let me tell you it have to be based more on convection rather than abstract and strict calculations of benefit and losses.

That took me more than an hour to answer, I’ll answer Ibraheem later ..

Ibraheem raised two interesting points…

As far as the Jewsih refugess for the Golan goes I can reassure Yasser that this point will never be raised. Insofar as we view the refugees from Arab lands as relevent to negotiations it is as a counter point to Palestinians demands for “the right of return”.

However, given that Jews made up around 2% of the population of the Arab league in the 1880’s (prior to ZIonism) would “Justice” not demand that they Recieve 2% of the land Area, Oil, Water, Agricultual land Etc of the Arab League?

That would come out to all of mandatory palestine+West Jordan+ half of lebanon and Syria+ Desert Areas in the Hejaz and Sinai to meet the area qualifications….

Now this is obviously ridiculous. We live in the real world and must find real world solutions. But I trust the point is made.

And I am curious as to why Syria is not nearly as strident in demanding the return of alexandreta. Does it perhaps have something to do with Turkey having 3 times the population, Control of Syria’s largest Water source, NATO membership and a millitant/semi-imperialistic nationalism which would eagerly crush Syria like a bug?

If such is the effect of Might on your perception of right perhaps we should take lessons…

Perhaps you could also suggest your view on whether Syria is Morally obligated to to allow the 2 million Kurds in Northern Syria to hold a plebescite on seccession in accordance with the internationally recognised right of self determination… Or whether it would be obligated to do the same If the Druze in the South or the Alawites in the Northwest ever wanted to do the same (which they very well might if the Alawite dominated government ever fell).

Now my point is not to advocate all these seccessions. merely to suggest that your view on “Rights” suffers from a certain tunnel vision…

Yasser- just saw your reply…
So:
1. History:
A few small corrections:
DMZ: First, I don’t know what map you are looking at to claim the DMZ on the Syrian side of the armistice line. It is west of that line. Second, Recheck the UN Armistice agreement. It states that the armistice lines do NOT have ” any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement”.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/e845ca0b92be4e3485256442007901cc!OpenDocument
Since said lines do NOT have any relevance to the legal borders, the default border is the international 1923 border. Furthermore, if Syria raises its claims to the Golan on the basis of “The inadmissibility of acquision of territory through war” (resolution 242 ) then it automatically nullifies Syria’s claims to land temporarily occupied in the course of 1948 and reverts legal title to Israel.
1967: Yes, Israel invaded the Golan in the last TWO days of the war. Now have a look on what Syria DID during the first FOUR days of the war. Mass bombardments on the civilian settlements below render Syria the aggressor. Stopping those bombardments was sufficient cause and the only REAL reason for taking the Golan in spite of the casualties involved. Additional Millitary-economic advantages were just gravy on top of that. You may also bear in mind that large scale development of the Golan only took place 10 years after the conquest- During which period Syria gave no signs of seeking peace in spite of feelers from the labor government.
No, we aren’t the victims here. But only because we chose not to allow anyone to make us victims. Nor do we intend to in the future.
1973: Yes, Syria made impressive initial gains… But only under the most favorable possible circumstances. A surprise attack, without benefit of declaration of war and without Israel mobilizing it’s reserves or bombing troop concentrations during our most holy day when all jews, secular as well as religious fast (from food AND water) and pray for 24 hours. The result?
We didn’t “diminish” your gains. We completely expelled you from the Golan and took territory equivalent in area to 60% of the Golan on the road leading to Damascus. We agreed to give that turf up and designate the eastern 5% fringe of the 1967 Golan as a UN patrolled DMZ to prevent future tension and as a prelude for peace negotiations which never materialized (what did Assad do when Sadat got the Sinai back in return for peace? Call him a traitor and voted to have Egypt expelled from the Arab League).
The point is that the Golan proved it’s defensive value even under the most conceivably adverse circumstances.
Outcome of direct negotiations: “I’ll confine my claim to the area occupied by Israel in the 1967 war ,I’ll even further and only demand a return to the 1932 boundries.”
Great! Now if your leaders do the same NOW or in the next few years that actually COULD jump start negotiations. I can’t make any 100% gurantees as to how the Israeli electorate will greet an agreement but I will vote for it IF it includes:
1. Security arrangements I described.
2. Water security.
3. Normalization (not peace) with all of Arab league a-la modified Saudi proposal.
4. On ground observation for decades.
2. Might Vs Right
This is only one version of the argument for peace ,even in Israel itself you find people having a different viewpoint than the one you mention, you may be familiar with it however I’ll summarize the key points:
a.the resolution of the conflict between Syria and Israel ,will remove a major obstacle to reaching a regional settlement which will open the door for israel’s integration and acceptance in the region.
Partially true. Given Syria’s current alliance with Iran I suspect that if we reach an arrangement with the Palestinians (and if Pigs learn how to fly..) we could reach “integration” and a de-facto alliance with the Sunni block and that they would be quite pleased at Syria’s discomfort… as distasteful as some of the S-B components are.
In general The Golan lacks the Moral-popular impact (outside Syria) that the occupation of the Palestinians does. And Syria lacks the central cultural-political clout that Egypt does. I think you are reading too much support into formal Arab league communiqués…
However, I’ll agree that total regional integration and peace are best even at the price of the Golan.
b. Syria has always kept its commitment towards international law and agreements signed by it .
Errrr….. No. I’ll leave Ibrahim to argue the case vs Lebanon but our experience prior to 1967 was not so positive. Nor was that of Turkey and Iraq. However, we HAVE had very positive experience with Syria keeping the quiet on the Golan since we conquered it… mostly because it’s suicidal to attacks fortified positions on it without overwhelming force.
Nope, I’m afraid that Syria only played Ball over the last 50 years with nations that demonstrated they had a VERY big stick (Turkey over the PKK).
3.in concern to settlements , I think the Syrian part should be more flexible when dealing with this issue and I think the major population gathering(kitsren/capital of the Golan as you say) should not be dismantled, but rather kept as a testament to coexistence between Arabs and Israelis
This would be a HUGE +++ towards the Israeli electorate approving an agreement. And If the Palestinians could also be as flexible they might just also have a shot at the 1967 borders (Yes… With security arrangements on the Jordan river and 2 roads leading to it. Fool me twice shame on me- remember?). To be sure they would have had a better shot prior to 2000. 5 years of driveby shootings and suicide bombers will not endear the idea of living under PA security domination to the settlers or their Green-line kin.
4. security arrangements( even if on the surface doesn’t have enough assurances to counter a Syrian attack ) are a preferable option than maintaining an endless state of war between the two countries which is exhausting both economically and psychologically.
Given the appropriate conditions I agree. Other Israelis won’t. With the proper charm offensive you might convince them yet.
5.land is no guarantee for security ,to deny that line of reasoning is to ask your
government to occupy all the ME!.
Whatever it takes. Up to and including a Babylonian style “zone of devastation” surrounding Israel. But I definitely agree I would prefer any stable alternative.
6. International law
So if as you say the Balfour declaration doesn’t invalidates all later resolutions why have you offered all sorts of arguments to deny that UNSC resolution 242 is binding to Israel ,and why should Israel not adhere by it , and you are asking me to recognize the Balfour Declaration .excuse me but this seems biased and hypocritical.

My point was to give an example of YOUR selective picking and choosing of “international law” to select those positions which suit you. As far as I am concerned “International law” as it is currently drafted is simply an exercise in power politics. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes another. Since it is rarely or never applied it should be viewed as nothing more than a propaganda tool.

If the Arab league HAD accepted the Balfour declaration THEN than the circumstances which led to later UN resolutions never would have existed… And Six million European Jews would still be alive AND the Middle Eastern Jews would have immigrated to Israel WITH their pride, possessions and self-identity instead as broken refugees AND Three million Soviet jews would not have been forcibly denationalized during the 20th Centuary.
The result? A Jewish majority in Mandatory Palestine, Jordan and the Golan WITHOUT Palestinian Refugees, warfare or conflict.
So there would have BEEN no resolution 194, 242 or 338. All of those were a mixture of Western stopgaps to prevent bloodshed and power politics by you patron (USSR) to prevent decisive Israeli victory and ensure you still depended on them for support.
the Arab states have blithely disregarded Resolutions that recognized Israeli RIGHTS- and only accepted them after Israel demonstrated that it had the MIGHT to protect it’s RIGHTS.
This is maybe right, and I don’t approve of our blinded rejection to past compromises, which have lead to so many catastrophes, but your line of reasoning concerning the Balfour declaration shows that you are guilty of that too.
Nope. Just don’t have any trust whatsoever in “universal justice” protecting us. It never did in the past. Or any illusions about the motives behind U.N resolutions. A mixture of 1 part idealism to nine parts greed, deals, fear and national interest.
7. Arab “Oil Power” and “Terror Power”
I don’t know what threats and economic blackmail you are talking about. This is far exaggerated and shows lack of respect and thus unwillingness to accept the other part .you are making outrageous blanket judgment about ALL Arabs of which a large part don’t have oil reserves , almost all of the arabs object to terrorist tactics (and are victim of terrorists ).
There are many educated, and civilized Arabs who by far surpass your criteria of civilized as demonstrated by your treatment of the Palestinians and people under your occupation (which violates all human rights ) the matter which you always have avoided to address in this thread.
The point is not whether most Arabs support terrorism. I agree many do not and are indeed the victims of it. The point is also not what our treatment of the Palestinians says about us- I would rather debate that with Ramzi but if he does not take it up I will discuss this with you after we finish reaching A Syrian-Israeli peace agreement.
The point (Which many educated, moderate Arabs make in support of Arab nationalist claims) is that unless the West supports the Arabs and condemms Israel it will be subject to terrorist attacks by extremists (of which some are subsidized by Arab governments… Such as Syria). The major wave of Palestinian Terrorism against the West (Airline hijackings, kidnappings of Businessmen, etc) was during the 70’s… and that is when UN resolutions condemming Israel continuously became common. A way of buying security. Al-Qaeda seeks to use the same tactics to achieve different objectives- did the Palestinain objectives render their tactics more moral? Again, I will prefer to debate that with Ramzi.
I don’t know what threats and economic blackmail you are talking about
This trend started after the 1973 war and the Arab oil embargo which was used to pressure the West to pressure Israel to retreat from territories conquered during that war. It partially worked.
Israel or Jewish extremists never threatened the West with terror attacks and has no resource essential to the existence of the West. So whatever support we DO get is not the result of fear or greed but sympathy and other non-profit oriented considerations (yes, including Muslim hatred. But WHY do they hate?).
If we were completely amoral we would place a nuclear warhead under every major world capital and use the threat of detonating them to prevent any UN resolutions against us.
Outrageous, right? Consider for a moment how that idea makes you feel….
Now consider how an Israel felt when Germany and other European countries quickly took up the Palestinian cause after their citizens were kidnapped and held for ransom.
And Don’t worry. I took the idea I outlined from an Egyptian Muslim brotherhood propaganda clip. Nobody in Israel would EVER consider striking neutrals in order to blackmail them for support. Some lines you do NOT cross.
8. Right Vs Left:
I knew you would jump on for writing this ,I knew what happened chronically( in regard to the intifada and to the Lebanon war).I know the causes and who triggered what.
But again as I read in a recent interview with Syrian ambassador to the U.S , I don’t share his vision about the Israel government is the one who have to convince its people of the necessity of peace ,I think we have an obligation to demonstrate to Israelis that peace is a better option ,and maybe that way give them a window that they can utilize to curb their government arrogance and disregard for the other part ( of which your successive governments are surly guilty of).
Some were. Most weren’t. And the governments who went farthest in abasing themselves in order to end suspicion were the once that resulted in the worst attacks on Israeli civilians. The “Arrogant” Sharon was necessary to restore security. And even he was COMPLETELY outclassed in that department by any equivalent Arab leader.
9. Iran
I am afraid the only way to deal with a nuclear Iran is to bomb Iran. If necessary with our own Nukes.
I have one word for you.. CRAZY!!
Are talking for real, please give me a break ,you are deceiving your self with this illusion of how to stop Iran’s nuclear threat with military power.
To be honest I really despise Iran for two reasons:
1- it wants to remove Israel from the map of the world ,yes you are reading right ,/I not only accept Israel right to exist ,but also reject those who don’t accept it.
2- its fanatic rule who beats and terrorize women who refuse to wear Hijab, this for me is revolting.
That being said ,I believe that diplomacy can do the trick ,and we can negotiate our way to avoid this catastrophe you are talking about.
I also have a word for you to think about : double standards , you are confessing that you have the nuclear capacity and are willing to use it ,how do you think that squares with ordinary Arab citizen ( an inhabitant of this region ) reading this ,you have to admit that at the very least it makes us a little apprehensive .
I hope diplomacy DOES work. But it might not. I hope the U.S uses conventional weapons to destroy the Iranian nuclear program (Possible)- but internal politics and fear of retaliation may prevent that. And we have to do EVERYTHING possible to prevent them from developing Nukes because eventually they WILL use them.
We do not have the long-range bombers or air-craft carries necessary to permanently cripple the Iranian nuclear program (we can disrupt it for 5 years tops). So the only way we can do it is through Nukes. Not on civilian cities and not on widespread military installations but on a dozen facilities housing the material and personnel that are the accumulated products of 20 years of development.
Yes, several hundered civilians will die if we strike those sites with low-grade nukes. But it’s better than the alternative.
As for our neighbors being apprehensive… understood. But consider that we have had enough nukes to permanently destroy the Arab-Muslim world for 30 years and never saw fit to use or consider using them in this fashion in spite of constant warfare. Why do you think Egypt and Saudi Arabia were never anxious about developing their own weapons? Because they knew that unless our existence was threatened we would never consider using our weapons so it was simpler not to threaten us.
Iran WILL use it’s Nukes not only against Israel but as a shield for conventional power plays in the gulf. That is what is making S-A and Egypt antsy now.

10.Negotiations now Vs later
Yeah the trouble is that an insecure regime is also less able to make compromise or concessions because it is more dependent on legitimacy through militancy…
This is partly true, an insecure regime is less able to make a compromise ,but certainly is more inclined to offer concessions to maintain its power through outside support which a peace deal will certainly give it.
To have a strong rule in Syria will pave the way to reaching the peace of the brave ,but I just wanted by raising this is to say that the ball is not always in our court! You have to do your part in moving towards peace and not be entrenched in your position ,waiting for what is going to happen as you have advocated many times before.

Agreed. But Barak tried… and got burnt and failed. Nor did Olmert have any success in getting some indication from Assad that future negotiations would end differently. They are still demanding that Israel make ALL the concessions (including the DMZ) BEFORE negotiations without making any promises on their own. That’s no way to start negotiations.
Also, I view reaching a resolution with the Palestinians as FAR more urgent than the Golan. That is existential and failing to resolve it endangers our existence. The political capital and Israeli leader would have to invest in reaching a Golan deal with Syria, even under Ideal conditions is simply too great to waste at this point.

11. History, Palestinains and Israel:
My point however was not that the Palestinians were not PHYSICALY here prior to our arrival/return but that a separate Palestinian national Identity and culture developed in response to the events of 1922-1967.
I strongly disagree ,to base my argument better ,I would ask you to tell my your position of the two states solution ( it appears that you do not support this solution as you deny the existence of a Palestinian collective nationality which is the basis upon which a Palestinian state would be founded)
On the contrary I totally support a two state solution and if the Palestinians were as flexible as you on allowing the continued existence of established settlements within reasonable bounds within their state I might support it on the basis of the 1967 borders (given a trial period for that arrangement). However, my support stems from a human-justice viewpoint rather than a national-justice viewpoint.
I view Palestinian Nationalism as arising from the historical circumstances of Zionism and I believe that had Zionism never existed and had “Palestine” been assigned to greater Jordan/greater Syria or a united Arab republic including the Hejaz, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq (As was the aim of Arab nationalists at the end of WWI) no separate Palestinian identity would have emerged. Mind you regional tensions and separatism MIGHT have emerged Vs the center of each of those alternate-history states… but they would not have matched current national boundaries.
12. Irreversability and asymetrical risktaking:Differences between Syria and Palestinians.
My assessment does not agree with that. And we have seen cases (such as the 1967 war) where the sentiment of the street drove even organized Arab countries to war against the immediate inclinations of their rulers.
But your assessment doesn’t account to the fact that your peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan is still holding just fine, again you have to accept blame for the misfortune of the Palestinians and stop absolving yourself of any responsibility in that regard.
The peace treaty with Egypt is NOT holding up “Fine”. Acoording to the treaty they are supposed to prevent the movement of arms, criminals and terrorists across their border. They arne’t in spite of having a very short border with Gaza (5kms!) and the result is recently resumed imported rocket attacks on our southern towns.
The Jordanians are successful on a MUCH longer border because they are TRYING. And they are trying because they share a certain common interest with us Vs the Palestinians. Syria does not and will not share this interest but it WILL have larger friction with us than Egypt (Water, land-rights and security of any Israelis who remain…)
13. Final words on rights/Final borders:
let me remind you that the Golan had many other ethnic groups (arabs ,arminians ,kurds) in addition to the Druze community and your authorities has forced them to evacuate their lands, and imposed your laws upon the rest, in violation of international law.
True. There were, in addition to the Druze in the Northern Golan, some 15,000 others in the South and the center (I believe the Circassians were the largest group), not counting Kuneitra in 1967. They largely fled rather than being expelled during the 1967 war due to the extremely heavy fighting in those sections and were evacuated by the retreating Syrian army(if you had read my earlier posts you will see I am not prudish in acknowledging responsibility for the 1948 refugees. My assessment about the Golan refugees is based an analysis not wishful thinking or the Israeli narrative).
(One Idea I heard for the Golan was to turn it into a UN supervised Circassian state for all Circassians in the middle East. A variation was to establish “Druzistan” in the Golan heights. How do you like them apples? )
Most of the Druze in the Northern Golan were far removed from the fighting and did not flee. Thanks to the good relations the community enjoys with Jews in Israel those who fled were allowed to return. The Muslim refugees (except for the Alawites of Rajar who ASKED to be annexed to Israel) were not- and around 200 who did not flee during the fighting were unceremoniously packed on army trucks and driven to the new border.
As a result we have had no internal security trouble in the Golan. At the risk of sounding disgusting I will openly admit many Israelis wistfully wonder what would have happened if we had done the same in the West Bank in 1967 rather than coming up with the “liberal occupation” open bridges policy, establishing a “shared authority” with Jordan in the West Bank, and allowing the 300,000 Palestinians who fled during the fighting (and later those who were expelled from the Gulf following the 1991 war) to return.

If whatever arrangement we reach with the Palestinians ends in rockets on Tel-Aviv I guess we will all find out.

One thing is positive is that you are open to consider the peace option ,but let me tell you it have to be based more on convection rather than abstract and strict calculations of benefit and losses.
Yasser you just don’t get it.
I AM a moral idealist.
Or rather what’s left of one after he watched friends and neighbors scraped off of walls as a result of his Ideals becoming government policy.

After he watched an army gutted and emasculated by his Ideals flailing around ineffectively, bound by humanitarian law ignored by it’s foes, as rockets rained uninterrupted on the North.

If you want to negotiate a peace agreement on the basis of “international law” and “inalienable rights” go to the UN. But Israel won’t sign any such agreement. Our moralist Idealist population died in October 2000. We can’t survive with those Ideals, not in this neighborhood.

If you want to negotiate with Israel I am probably the best thing you will find for you that actually represents a significant fraction of the Israeli population.

Errr…. Right. let’s try a response that is a bit clearer:

Yasser- just saw your reply…
So:
1. History:
A few small corrections:

DMZ: First, I don’t know what map you are looking at to claim the DMZ on the Syrian side of the armistice line. It is west of that line. Second, Recheck the UN Armistice agreement. It states that the armistice lines do NOT have ” any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement”.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/e845ca0b92be4e3485256442007901cc!OpenDocument

Since said lines do NOT have any relevance to the legal borders, the default border is the international 1923 border. Furthermore, if Syria raises its claims to the Golan on the basis of “The inadmissibility of acquision of territory through war” (resolution 242 ) then it automatically nullifies Syria’s claims to land temporarily occupied in the course of 1948 and reverts legal title to Israel.

1967: Yes, Israel invaded the Golan in the last TWO days of the war. Now have a look on what Syria DID during the first FOUR days of the war. Mass bombardments on the civilian settlements below render Syria the aggressor. Stopping those bombardments was sufficient cause and the only REAL reason for taking the Golan in spite of the casualties involved. Additional Millitary-economic advantages were just gravy on top of that.

You may also bear in mind that large scale civilian development of the Golan only took place 10 years after the conquest- During which period Syria gave no signs of seeking peace in spite of feelers from the labor government.

No, we aren’t the victims here. But only because we chose not to allow anyone to MAKE us victims. Nor do we intend to in the future.

1973: Yes, Syria made impressive initial gains… But only under the most favorable possible circumstances. A surprise attack, without benefit of declaration of war and without Israel mobilizing it’s reserves or bombing troop concentrations during our most holy day when all jews, secular as well as religious fast (from food AND water) and pray for 24 hours. That allowed you to advance far in the southern sector (not in the North. You did not come close to “liberatining” all or most of the Golan) The result?

We didn’t “diminish” your gains. We completely expelled you from the Golan and took territory equivalent in area to 60% of the Golan on the road leading to Damascus. We agreed to give that turf up and designate the eastern 5% fringe of the 1967 Golan as a UN patrolled DMZ to prevent future tension and as a prelude for peace negotiations which never materialized (what did Assad do when Sadat got the Sinai back in return for peace? Call him a traitor and voted to have Egypt expelled from the Arab League).

The point is that the Golan proved it’s defensive value even under the most conceivably adverse circumstances.

“Outcome of direct negotiations: “I’ll confine my claim to the area occupied by Israel in the 1967 war ,I’ll even further and only demand a return to the 1932 boundries.”

Great! Now if your leaders do the same NOW or in the next few years that actually COULD jump start negotiations. I can’t make any 100% gurantees as to how the Israeli electorate will greet an agreement but I will vote for it IF it includes:
1. Security arrangements I described.
2. Water security.
3. Normalization (not peace) with all of Arab league a-la modified Saudi proposal.
4. On ground observation for decades.

2. Might Vs Right
“This is only one version of the argument for peace ,even in Israel itself you find people having a different viewpoint than the one you mention, you may be familiar with it however I’ll summarize the key points:”
“a.the resolution of the conflict between Syria and Israel ,will remove a major obstacle to reaching a regional settlement which will open the door for israel’s integration and acceptance in the region.”
Partially true. Given Syria’s current alliance with Iran I suspect that if we reach an arrangement with the Palestinians (and if Pigs learn how to fly..) we could reach “integration” and a de-facto alliance with the Sunni block and that they would be quite pleased at Syria’s discomfort… as distasteful as some of the S-B components are.

In general The Golan lacks the Moral-popular impact (outside Syria) that the occupation of the Palestinians does. And Syria lacks the central cultural-political clout that Egypt does. I think you are reading too much support into formal Arab league communiqués…

However, I’ll agree that total regional integration and peace are best even at the price of the Golan.

“b. Syria has always kept its commitment towards international law and agreements signed by it .”

Errrr….. No. I’ll leave Ibrahim to argue the case vs Lebanon but our experience prior to 1967 was not so positive. Nor was that of Turkey and Iraq. However, we HAVE had very positive experience with Syria keeping the quiet on the Golan since we conquered it… mostly because it’s suicidal to attacks fortified positions on it without overwhelming force.

Nope, I’m afraid that Syria only played Ball over the last 50 years with nations that demonstrated they had a VERY big stick (Turkey over the PKK).

“3.in concern to settlements , I think the Syrian part should be more flexible when dealing with this issue and I think the major population gathering(kitsren/capital of the Golan as you say) should not be dismantled, but rather kept as a testament to coexistence between Arabs and Israelis”

Katzrin. This would be a HUGE +++ towards the Israeli electorate approving an agreement. And If the Palestinians could also be as flexible they might just also have a shot at the 1967 borders (Yes… With security arrangements on the Jordan river and 2 roads leading to it. Fool me twice shame on me- remember?). To be sure they would have had a better shot prior to 2000. 5 years of driveby shootings and suicide bombers will not endear the idea of living under PA security domination to the settlers or their Green-line kin.

“4. security arrangements( even if on the surface doesn’t have enough assurances to counter a Syrian attack ) are a preferable option than maintaining an endless state of war between the two countries which is exhausting both economically and psychologically.”

Given the appropriate conditions I agree. Other Israelis won’t. With the proper charm offensive you might convince them yet.

“5.land is no guarantee for security ,to deny that line of reasoning is to ask your
government to occupy all the ME!.”

Whatever it takes. Up to and including a Babylonian style “zone of devastation” surrounding Israel. But I definitely agree I would prefer any stable alternative.

“6. International law
So if as you say the Balfour declaration doesn’t invalidates all later resolutions why have you offered all sorts of arguments to deny that UNSC resolution 242 is binding to Israel ,and why should Israel not adhere by it , and you are asking me to recognize the Balfour Declaration .excuse me but this seems biased and hypocritical.”

My point was to give an example of YOUR selective picking and choosing of “international law” to select those positions which suit YOU. As far as I am concerned “International law” as it is currently drafted is simply an exercise in power politics. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes another. Since it is rarely or never applied it should be viewed as nothing more than a propaganda tool.

If the Arab league HAD accepted the Balfour declaration THEN than the circumstances which LED to later UN resolutions never would have existed… Six million European Jews would still be alive AND the Middle Eastern Jews would have immigrated to Israel WITH their pride, possessions and self-identity instead as broken refugees AND Three million Soviet jews would not have been forcibly denationalized during the 20th Centuary.

The result? A Jewish majority in Mandatory Palestine, Jordan and the Golan WITHOUT Palestinian Refugees, warfare or conflict.

So there would have BEEN no resolution 194, 242 or 338. All of those were a mixture of Western stopgaps to prevent bloodshed and power politics by you patron (USSR) to prevent decisive Israeli victory and ensure you still depended on them for support.

(((the Arab states have blithely disregarded Resolutions that recognized Israeli RIGHTS- and only accepted them after Israel demonstrated that it had the MIGHT to protect it’s RIGHTS.))))

“”This is maybe right, and I don’t approve of our blinded rejection to past compromises, which have lead to so many catastrophes, but your line of reasoning concerning the Balfour declaration shows that you are guilty of that too.”"

Nope. Just don’t have any trust whatsoever in “universal justice” protecting us. It never did in the past. Or any illusions about the motives behind U.N resolutions. A mixture of 1 part idealism to nine parts greed, deals, fear and national interest.

7. Arab “Oil Power” and “Terror Power”
“”I don’t know what threats and economic blackmail you are talking about. This is far exaggerated and shows lack of respect and thus unwillingness to accept the other part .you are making outrageous blanket judgment about ALL Arabs of which a large part don’t have oil reserves , almost all of the arabs object to terrorist tactics (and are victim of terrorists ).
There are many educated, and civilized Arabs who by far surpass your criteria of civilized as demonstrated by your treatment of the Palestinians and people under your occupation (which violates all human rights ) the matter which you always have avoided to address in this thread.”"

The point is not whether most Arabs support terrorism. I agree many do not and are indeed the victims of it. The point is also not what our treatment of the Palestinians says about us- I would rather debate that with Ramzi but if he does not take it up I will discuss this with you after we finish reaching A Syrian-Israeli peace agreement.

The point (Which many educated, moderate Arabs make in support of Arab nationalist claims) is that unless the West supports the Arabs and condemms Israel it will be subject to terrorist attacks by extremists (of which some are subsidized by Arab governments… Such as Syria). The major wave of Palestinian Terrorism against the West (Airline hijackings, kidnappings of Businessmen, etc) was during the 70’s… and that is when UN resolutions condemming Israel continuously became common. A way of buying security. Al-Qaeda seeks to use the same tactics to achieve different objectives- did the Palestinain objectives render their tactics more moral? Again, I will prefer to debate that with Ramzi.

“”"I don’t know what threats and economic blackmail you are talking about “”"
The Arab oil embargo in 1973 which was used to pressure the West to pressure Israel to retreat from territories conquered during that war. It partially worked.

It’s been an implies threat and more mild moderators (oil drilling contracts, preffered prices, extent of pumping…) since.

Israel or Jewish extremists never threatened the West with terror attacks and has no resource essential to the existence of the West. So whatever support we DO get is not the result of fear or greed but sympathy and other non-profit oriented considerations (yes, including Muslim hatred. But WHY do they hate?).

If we were completely amoral we would place a nuclear warhead under every major world capital and use the threat of detonating them to prevent any UN resolutions against us.

Outrageous, right? Consider for a moment how that idea makes you feel….
Now consider how an Israel felt when Germany and other European countries quickly took up the Palestinian cause after their citizens were kidnapped and held for ransom.

And Don’t worry. I took the idea I outlined from an Egyptian Muslim brotherhood propaganda clip. Nobody in Israel would EVER consider striking neutrals in order to blackmail them for support. Some lines you do NOT cross.

8. Right Vs Left:
“”"I knew you would jump on for writing this ,I knew what happened chronically( in regard to the intifada and to the Lebanon war).I know the causes and who triggered what.
But again as I read in a recent interview with Syrian ambassador to the U.S , I don’t share his vision about the Israel government is the one who have to convince its people of the necessity of peace ,I think we have an obligation to demonstrate to Israelis that peace is a better option ,and maybe that way give them a window that they can utilize to curb their government arrogance and disregard for the other part ( of which your successive governments are surly guilty of).”"”

Some were. Most weren’t. And the governments who went farthest in abasing themselves in order to end suspicion were the once that resulted in the worst attacks on Israeli civilians. And whatever Arrogance the WORST of our leaders displayed wasn’t even in the same CLASS as the BEST of your leaders.

9. Iran
(((I am afraid the only way to deal with a nuclear Iran is to bomb Iran. If necessary with our own Nukes.)))
“”I have one word for you.. CRAZY!!
Are talking for real, please give me a break ,you are deceiving your self with this illusion of how to stop Iran’s nuclear threat with military power.
To be honest I really despise Iran for two reasons:
1- it wants to remove Israel from the map of the world ,yes you are reading right ,/I not only accept Israel right to exist ,but also reject those who don’t accept it.
2- its fanatic rule who beats and terrorize women who refuse to wear Hijab, this for me is revolting.
That being said ,I believe that diplomacy can do the trick ,and we can negotiate our way to avoid this catastrophe you are talking about.
I also have a word for you to think about : double standards , you are confessing that you have the nuclear capacity and are willing to use it ,how do you think that squares with ordinary Arab citizen ( an inhabitant of this region ) reading this ,you have to admit that at the very least it makes us a little apprehensive .”"”

I hope diplomacy DOES work. But it might not. I hope the U.S uses conventional weapons to destroy the Iranian nuclear program (Possible)- but internal politics and fear of retaliation may prevent that. And we have to do EVERYTHING possible to prevent them from developing Nukes because eventually they WILL use them.
We do not have the long-range bombers or air-craft carries necessary to permanently cripple the Iranian nuclear program (we can disrupt it for 5 years tops). So the only way we can do it is through Nukes. Not on civilian cities and not on widespread military installations but on a dozen facilities housing the material and personnel that are the accumulated products of 20 years of development.
Yes, several hundered civilians will die if we strike those sites with low-grade nukes. But it’s better than the alternative.
As for our neighbors being apprehensive… understood. But consider that we have had enough nukes to permanently destroy the Arab-Muslim world for 30 years and never saw fit to use or consider using them in this fashion in spite of constant warfare. Why do you think Egypt and Saudi Arabia were never anxious about developing their own weapons? Because they knew that unless our existence was threatened we would never consider using our weapons so it was simpler not to threaten us.

Iran WILL use it’s Nukes not only against Israel but as a shield for conventional power plays in the gulf. That is what is making S-A and Egypt antsy now.

As for the Western double standards read my comment about Terror power. The West is not worried about us threatening to detonate Nukes under THEIR cities in order to blackmail them because we never did anything to indicate we might. The Muslim world has.

So obviously they are more worried about potential blackmailers getteing their hands on Nukes than they are about us.

10.Negotiations now Vs later
((Yeah the trouble is that an insecure regime is also less able to make compromise or concessions because it is more dependent on legitimacy through militancy…))
“”This is partly true, an insecure regime is less able to make a compromise ,but certainly is more inclined to offer concessions to maintain its power through outside support which a peace deal will certainly give it.
To have a strong rule in Syria will pave the way to reaching the peace of the brave ,but I just wanted by raising this is to say that the ball is not always in our court! You have to do your part in moving towards peace and not be entrenched in your position ,waiting for what is going to happen as you have advocated many times before.”"”

Agreed. But Barak tried… and got burnt and failed. Nor did Olmert have any success in getting some indication from Assad that future negotiations would end differently. They are still demanding that Israel make ALL the concessions (including the DMZ) BEFORE negotiations without making any promises on their own. That’s no way to start negotiations.

Also, I view reaching a resolution with the Palestinians as FAR more urgent than the Golan. That is existential and failing to resolve it endangers our existence. The political capital and Israeli leader would have to invest in reaching a Golan deal with Syria, even under Ideal conditions is simply too great to waste at this point absent Syrian initiative-he needs to save his(her in this cae) energies to establishing a border with the palestians. THEN we can check Golan possibilities. And we BETTER do this in the next few years.

11. History, Palestinains and Israel:
(((My point however was not that the Palestinians were not PHYSICALY here prior to our arrival/return but that a separate Palestinian national Identity and culture developed in response to the events of 1922-1967.)))
“”"I strongly disagree ,to base my argument better ,I would ask you to tell my your position of the two states solution ( it appears that you do not support this solution as you deny the existence of a Palestinian collective nationality which is the basis upon which a Palestinian state would be founded)”"”"

On the contrary I totally support a two state solution and if the Palestinians were as flexible as you on allowing the continued existence of established settlements within reasonable bounds within their state I might support it on the basis of the 1967 borders (given a trial period for that arrangement).

However, my support stems from a human-justice viewpoint rather than a national-justice viewpoint. I view Palestinian Nationalism as arising from the historical circumstances of Zionism and I believe that had Zionism never existed and had “Palestine” been assigned to greater Jordan/greater Syria or a united Arab republic including the Hejaz, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq (As was the aim of Arab nationalists at the end of WWI) no separate Palestinian identity would have emerged. Mind you regional tensions and separatism MIGHT have emerged Vs the center of each of those alternate-history states… but they would not have matched current national boundaries.

12. Irreversability and asymetrical risktaking:Differences between Syria and Palestinians.
(((My assessment does not agree with that. And we have seen cases (such as the 1967 war) where the sentiment of the street drove even organized Arab countries to war against the immediate inclinations of their rulers.)))
“”But your assessment doesn’t account to the fact that your peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan is still holding just fine, again you have to accept blame for the misfortune of the Palestinians and stop absolving yourself of any responsibility in that regard.”"”

The peace treaty with Egypt is NOT holding up “Fine”. Acoording to the treaty they are supposed to prevent the movement of arms, criminals and terrorists across their border. They arne’t in spite of having a very short border with Gaza (5kms!) and the result is recently resumed imported rocket attacks on our southern towns.

And ALL their millitary execises are directed at one target-US. If we ever become sufficiently weak for Mubarak’s succesors to decide that crossing the Sinai and engaging in war has a GOOD chance of victory I don’t know if they will resist the temptation. Admittedly a STABLE agreement with the Palestinains might remove the temptation.

The Jordanians are successful on a MUCH longer border because they are TRYING. And they are trying because they share a certain common interest with us Vs the Palestinians. Syria does not and will not share this interest but it WILL have larger friction with us than Egypt (Water, land-rights and security of any Israelis who remain…)

13. Final words on rights/Final borders:
“”let me remind you that the Golan had many other ethnic groups (arabs ,arminians ,kurds) in addition to the Druze community and your authorities has forced them to evacuate their lands, and imposed your laws upon the rest, in violation of international law.”"

True. There were, in addition to the Druze in the Northern Golan, some 15,000 others in the South and the center (I believe the Circassians were the largest group), not counting Kuneitra in 1967. They largely fled rather than being expelled during the 1967 war due to the extremely heavy fighting in those sections and were evacuated by the retreating Syrian army(if you had read my earlier posts you will see I am not prudish in acknowledging responsibility for the 1948 refugees. My assessment about the Golan refugees is based an analysis not wishful thinking or the Israeli narrative).

(One Idea I heard for the Golan was to turn it into a UN supervised Circassian state for all Circassians in the middle East. A variation was to establish “Druzistan” in the Golan heights. How do you like them apples? )

Most of the Druze in the Northern Golan were far removed from the fighting and did not flee. Thanks to the good relations the community enjoys with Jews in Israel those who fled were allowed to return. The Muslim refugees (except for the Alawites of Rajar who ASKED to be annexed to Israel) were not- and around 200 who did not flee during the fighting were unceremoniously packed on army trucks and driven to the new border.

As a result we have had no internal security trouble in the Golan. At the risk of sounding disgusting I will openly admit many Israelis wistfully wonder what would have happened if we had done the same in the West Bank in 1967 rather than coming up with the “liberal occupation” open bridges policy, establishing a “shared authority” with Jordan in the West Bank, and allowing the 300,000 Palestinians who fled during the fighting (and later those who were expelled from the Gulf following the 1991 war) to return.

If whatever arrangement we reach with the Palestinians ends in rockets on Tel-Aviv I guess we will all find out.

“”"One thing is positive is that you are open to consider the peace option ,but let me tell you it have to be based more on convection rather than abstract and strict calculations of benefit and losses.”"

Yasser you just don’t get it.

I AM a moral idealist.

Or rather what’s left of one after he watched friends and neighbors scraped off of walls as a result of his Ideals becoming government policy.

After he watched an army gutted and emasculated by his Ideals flailing around ineffectively, bound by humanitarian law, as rockets rained uninterrupted on the North.

If you want to negotiate a peace agreement on the basis of “international law” and “inalienable rights” go to the UN. But Israel won’t sign any such agreement. Our moralist Idealist population died in October 2000. We can’t survive those Ideals, not in this neighborhood.

If you want to negotiate with Israel I am probably the best thing you will find for you that actually represents a significant fraction of the Israeli population.

I see we are getting some where, aren’t we:)

History:

Look, you just didn’t convince me that the DMZ belong to Israel ,however I just
happened to have the perfect solution : we can beef up the UNDOF and create a buffer zone that includes the DMZ of 1949 with additional land distributed equally in each side ,that way we can have a balanced approach, and moreover will guarantee access to the Kinneret for our side as for your side.

Furthermore, if Syria raises its claims to the Golan on the basis of “The inadmissibility of acquision of territory through war” (resolution 242 ) then it automatically nullifies Syria’s claims to land temporarily occupied in the course of 1948 and reverts legal title to Israel.

You may have a point here,but that also applies to you in a circular manner,you see I am careful to respect international law ,because with the lack of trust demonstrated by each side against the other(let alone having no credible third party) we have to have something concrete and established to base our negotiations on ,after all as you demand one should not resort to mere military power to claim his right in land ,so this is very important and I hope you can agree with me on this one.

A correction :
Unfortunately you have been brainwashed by your establishment ,the sequence of events were as follows
The Israelis would intentionally send a tractor along with Israeli armed troops ,to the disputed areas to provoke the Syrian part ,the Syrian part would respond to this provocation by shooting on the Israeli side which will draw more fighting and raids from both sides.
You have used your control of the DMZ to perform illegal acts like draining the Hula lake and diverting the Jordan river from the DMZ and that is according to the UNTSO chief of staff who described Israeli actions as unnecessary provocation and violation to the armistice deal.
So what you describe as attack against you was a result to the instability of Israeli-Syrian relations and continued transgression by your side of Arab land that was owned by Arabs in the DMZ .

Neutral third party
I can’t make any 100% gurantees as to how the Israeli electorate will greet an agreement but I will vote for it IF it includes:
1. Security arrangements I described.
2. Water security.
3. Normalization (not peace) with all of Arab league a-la modified Saudi proposal.
4. On ground observation for decades.

If you take a look at the Shepardstown’s talks and see the American proposal sheet that was handed to both parties you will see how much it respond to Israeli demands and needs of security ,following that line of reasoning it seem that you should be the one to ask for America involvement in the peace process not us .
We have been trying for a long time to draw America to the table ,but they seem to lost interest ,now bear in mind that I am not discarding the fact that our rule in not trusted by the Americans and is viewed as only interested in the PROCESS not the actual outcome ,however I am getting the impression that the Israeli side is more interested in the process than the actual deal ,do you think so or am I wrong?

Might Vs Right

Look ,we don’t have an alliance with Iran ,it is not based on anything but the consideration of regime survival ,so actually if you manage to convince the regime that its SURVIVAL will be best ensured if it forgo its relation with Iran ,they will do it ,and you will be surprised by how fast they will flip-flop.
Another important issue ,you have to stop using those terms of Sunni and Shia block ,and Arab moderation camp Vs. states that sponsor terrorism (axis of evil??!) and all that lingo that is used to outrageously simplify your view of the region. look at the Americans who use those terms in their regular discourse about the region ,look where that got them ,to a huge humiliating defeat in Iraq,to recession of their regional rule and clout in favour of other parties (France ,the E.U ,Turkey) ,so be smarter and learn the facts on the ground.

However, we HAVE had very positive experience with Syria keeping the quiet on the Golan since we conquered it… mostly because it’s suicidal to attacks fortified positions on it without overwhelming force.

Arggg.. when will you people give us the credit of championing peace as the only vehicle to have our rights back ?,when will you give us credit for sticking to the principle of negotiation and respecting our part of agreements between the two sides?.
You see this kind of logic ,will make some think that Israel will not respond but to the logic of power ,that will lead them to think of creating a resistance movement just like the one who kicked you out of Lebanon in 2000( I don’t mean the murderous Hizbullah ,but the idea of militant resistance in general in which Lebanese from all the spectrum took part.)
This logic reinforces the notion that Israel will only respond to an imminent military threat ,that doesn’t have to be a regular army ,and it is more likely to succumb to military power (as happened with Lebanon) to peace negotiations( as is happening in Syria).you have to give some credit to this line of reasoning ,don’t you?

Nope, I’m afraid that Syria only played Ball over the last 50 years with nations that demonstrated they had a VERY big stick (Turkey over the PKK).

This is not accurate , will discuss it later..

The Palestinean refugees problem,
I The result? A Jewish majority in Mandatory Palestine, Jordan and the Golan WITHOUT Palestinian Refugees, warfare or conflict.

I didn’t get how is that possible ,unless you are suggesting that you are willing to incorporate the Palestinian community in ALL of Palestine and give them equal rights, look ,it is one thing to deny the existence of a Palestinian state and nationality ,it is completely different thing to deny the historical existence and attachment of the Palestinians to their land and country.
So , can you tell me what is your vision to solving the Palestinian refugees in Syria ,we are not going to nationalize them like Jordan , and we can’t afford keeping them here permanently without a plan for how they can return to their land or be located to other territories.

Arab “Oil Power” and “Terror Power”
The point (Which many educated, moderate Arabs make in support of Arab nationalist claims) is that unless the West supports the Arabs and condemms Israel it will be subject to terrorist attacks by extremists (of which some are subsidized by Arab governments… Such as Syria).

Who told you this ,did you hear it from those educated Arabs themselves?
I am getting the impression that you are REALLY not living in this region .
Syria was one ( and still is)of the major providers of intelligence and support to America in fighting terrorism after 9/11, that was admitted by high ranking American officials. we have absolutely nothing to do with those terrorists.

The Arab oil embargo in 1973 which was used to pressure the West to pressure Israel to retreat from territories conquered during that war. It partially worked.

In our dictionary that is called SOLIDARITY, and don’t underestimate the support and sacrifices that can be given to a just Arab cause (like Syria’s).

Iran

I was not talking about Western double standards ,I was talking about YOUR double standards .
are you for real trying to convince me that using nuclear weapons is a practical option to counter Iran’s threat.
Don’t you see the madness of your distorted self-centred logic( if we can call it one).
Of course we are afraid from Israeli nuclear capacity ,the fact that you haven’t use them doesn’t do anything to mitigate our fears .
be sure that ,No deal between Syria and Israel will be passed unless the issue of WMD in the region is addressed properly .we have to make the ME an area void of WMD and that is the only way we can end the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear project.

Negotiations now Vs later

NO. we have actually agreed to resume negotiations from scratch as the Israelis wanted ,whereas the firm position of Syria was that negotiations must resume from the point they stopped at ,so this is in my view one major concession on our behalf.
Ok, so are you telling me that the indications by your designate PM Levni ,that she wants to stop following the Syrian-Israeli track are justifiable ,to solve the problem between us will take a fraction of effort compared to the effort to solve the problem with the Palestinians ,and will make it much more easier to advance in that direction, also it will pave the way as I mentioned to a peace treaty with Lebanon.

History, Palestinains and Israel:

I actually see your point,it is true that the Palestinians themselves should hammer out the shape and form of their state and identity ,and they are the only ones that can create respected institutions and government that can defend their rights ,but also bear in mind that the quest for a comprehensible solution is crucial to ensuring permanent and just peace in the region and a first step towards achieving a warm peace between the nations of this region, so to have a separate peace treaty with neighbouring Arab nations should not hinder us from considering how the Palestinians will eventually have their independent state .

Final words on rights/Final borders:
(One Idea I heard for the Golan was to turn it into a UN supervised Circassian state for all Circassians in the middle East. A variation was to establish “Druzistan” in the Golan heights. How do you like them apples? )

Actually I will welcome such thing( I don’t know why I forget to mention the circassian community, I know that they were one of the largest communities in the Golan) ,I am open to giving the area self rule ,under Syrian sovereignty ,but with autonomous administration ,that way it will give the Israelis more assurances for their presence in the Golan.

Last word:
The picture you paint is very dim ,part of it is true ,part of it shows that you refuse to admit to your faults, this is a not so pleasant neighbourhood to be living in ( after Israel was established) for both of us .
However I see things are changing ,that maybe just my impression …
Anyway ,knowing that Israelis will have a chance to vote in a referendum on any peace agreement can you give me an estimate on the percentage that will vote in favour of the proposals that we have formulated in this thread.

Ibraheem,
You seem to have misunderstood me ,I don’t blame you ,you see when I have raised the thing about the return of Shebaa farms ,I was only demonstrating a point ,nevertheless, can you please tell me how you are going to convince me (aside from the politics attached to the issue and its relation to the disarmament of Hizbullah) to give you a piece of land that the U.N recognizes as Syrian .furthermore, what benefit will you get out of such concession except the renewal of direct armed conflict between you and Israel that you have so keenly trying to avoid?

Syria treats Lebanon as a historical mistake in which Lebanese territories were cut out from Syria and Lebanon was created. All the policies of Syria towards Lebanon revolved around this concept and it has overridden any international law that manages the relationship between 2 neighboring countries.

That all is changing after the Syrian side accepted and taken steps to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon,we want to turn the page on the past and start a new chapter.

About the Jews in Syria ,it is true that they had great fortune and thriving businesses ,they still do ,but on a smaller scale as most of them decided to go to Israel and their move was merely facilitated by the authorities ,something that I figure the Israeli should be thankful for .
However those who choose to stay here enjoy undeniable rights as any Syrian citizen and are accepted and treated like any other Syrian ,of course they have rights ,maybe we will give them a portion of the Golan when it return to Syrian sovereignty .

I have not forgotten the Alexandaraon,I don’t know what agreements/arangments the Syrian rule have struck out with Turkey ,however I have my own theory that explains why we lost Alexandaraon,if you are interested I can lay it out for you .

Yasser,

1.Narratives:
Shortly after the Oslo agreements were signed Your namesake, Yasser Arafat, Declared in a speech in South Africa that the fate of the Jews in Israel would be the same of those in Kyber (A Jewish oasis town in the Hijaz where some Jewish tribes from medina fled after receiving assurances from Muhamad they would be free from future attacks. After he took over Mecca Muhamad came with a large army and massacred them. Some fled to Syria and later fought for the Byzantines against Caliph Umar).

When word of the speech got back to Israel, Yossi Beilin, our untiring peacnik, quickly declared that we must make peace with our enemies, not our friends, and that we cannot limit our negotiating partners to “Zionist Arabs who stand up to sing Hatikva (our national anthem)”.

Letting aside for the moment how badly that episode turned out he was right on principle.

My point is that if you view acceptance of the Arab-Syrian historical narrative by Israelis as a precondition to successful peace negotiations then no peace negotiations are going to take place.

Sorry, but critical thinking is addictive. I personally and Israelis collectively have spent too much effort in re-examining our own myths in order to gain a realistic appreciation of our past actions and motives to take your FAR more fantastic and unrealitic myths seriously.

I believe it is in your own best interest to rethink everything you were taught in school about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Better yet assume it is all wrong and start from scratch by reading three separate and opposing accounts.

2.History/1923 international boundary:
Yasser, you are DEFINITELY not going to convince me that Syria has ANY legal claim to ANY land west of the 1923 international boundary. This is a matter of principle. I have spelled out my reasons and I believe I have done so objectively and fully. If you care to respond to any of my specific points specifically I will be glad to carry on the discussion and am prepared to be convinced if you tell me something I don’t know.

Otherwise, the bottom line is that I will view any deal which involves giving Syria one inch of land west of the international border a national disgrace in principle, a practical security problem on top of that caused by giving up the Golan AND an invitation for further outrageous demands in the future both by Syria and other neighbors (We had DMZ’s on the Egyptian and Jordanian border as well). I WILL vote against it even if it is a deal breaker.

NO.

You have to put your foot down somewhere.

3.DMZ on Israeli soil:
Your solution of Israel placing a demilitarized zone on IT’S reduced borders is both bad in practical terms of guarding Vs irregular warfare and “economic” infiltrators, excaberates the security burden we are already undertaking by giving up the Golan AND is simply unjustified.

WE are the ones taking a security risk by giving up the Golan. YOU do not need a DMZ from us- the opposite is true.

” moreover will guarantee access to the Kinneret for our side as for your side.”

Over my dead body!!!! You are NOT getting access to the Kinneret. You had none in 1947 and you will have none in 2017.

NO.

4. Pre-1967 border skirmishes.

“”A correction :
Unfortunately you have been brainwashed by your establishment ,the sequence of events were as follows
The Israelis would intentionally send a tractor along with Israeli armed troops ,to the disputed areas to provoke the Syrian part ,the Syrian part would respond to this provocation by shooting on the Israeli side which will draw more fighting and raids from both sides.”"

I assume you are referring to the famous comment of Moshe Dyan. Actually he was quoted in my “brain washing establishement” highschool textbook in the chapter involving 1950’s Israel (Along with others opposing his version of events).

What you are failing to realize is that since the DMZ fell under the civil authority of Israel we had EVERY right to cultivate those fields. The only question was whether we SHOULD cultivate them in the face of Syrian harassment.

What YOU never considered is whether Syria SHOULD have harrased the cutivators and fired at their villages. Was cultivation rights worth bombing civilians and starting a war…. Especially one that led in you losing the Golan?

“You have used your control of the DMZ to perform illegal acts like draining the Hula lake and diverting the Jordan river from the DMZ and that is according to the UNTSO chief of staff who described Israeli actions as unnecessary provocation and violation to the armistice deal.”

First of all I am delighted that you recognize our pre-1967 control of the DMZ!

I read the book (”Between Arab and Jew”) written by the Swedish UNTSO CoS (forgot his name) and you are Incorrect. He did say it was an unnecessary “provocation”. He did not say it was a violation-because it was not. In the same book he complained that Israeli troops were patrolling too close to our border with Gaza and the West Bank and were infuriating the “proud and noble Bedouin warriors” of Jordan and that the “Western cultured” and “Sensible” “Hebraic people” should realize the precaciousness of their situation and avoid giving their “Strong neighbors” any excuse for attack.

Screw that Lawrence of Arabia Mickey Mouse crap. Draining the Hula lake was an internal Israeli affair (Do I understand correctly that you are now claiming sovereignty over the Hula Valley as well? See what I mean about a slippery slope?)

” continued transgression by your side of Arab land that was owned by Arabs in the DMZ .”

All the Arabs that lived WITHIN the DMZ (all 200 of them according to the UNTSO CoS…) left by 1950 to elsewhwere in Israel (mostly Nazereth) or Syria. Didn’t want to live under artillery bombardement by opposing armies. They also said there was nothing to eat but Bannanas. But that is irrelevent-if they lived in the DMZ they fell under Israeli civil authority (and had Israeli citizenship) and certainly had no business being “protected” by Syria (Or will you now suggest that Syria protect Israeli Arabs by firing artillery on Tiberias once we return the Golan? Slippery slope again…).

And if, as was actually the case, they lived on the SYRIAN side of the international border then they had no cultivation rights to begin with. That’s why you call it a border.

The bottom line from all that you say is that if we accept your claim to the DMZ and the narrative surrounding it we also accept your right to intervene within pre-1967 Israel. Screw that.

5. Neutral third party
Don’t see how this is relevant or what your point is. Elaborate or clarify and I will respond.

6. Might Vs Right/Sunni-Shia tension
I am certainly not using “Moderate states” Vs “Axis of Evil” terminology. Where did I say that? Neither side seems very moderate to me. But one is pro-American (or American dependent) and the other is pro-iran (or Iran dependent).
In practice it looks to me like Egypt and Saudi Arabia are backing Sunni millitas in Lebanon and Iraq Vs rival Shiite millitas backed by Iran (and in Lebanon Syria). A great deal of government issued and “Free-press” internal Arab rheotic seems to be directed against the “Shiite threat”, especially in Egypt. And the U.S is arming SA and the Gulf up against Iran. Syria seems to be isolated within the Arab league (At least until the U.S leaves Iraq…). Some of that conflict seems to be spilling over to Syria itself (the terrorist bombing in Damascus was blamed by your government on Sunni Takfiris, right?)

Looks to me like two rival coalitions. And no, I am NOT happy about it. Inter-Arab tension means less stable regimes, which means bigger chance of takeover by totally irrational fundmentalists, more excited angry young men with guns who will eventually turn them on us and a general ghastly mess. Whenever the Arabs shoot each other some of the bullets will hit the Jews. We certainly saw a mini-example of that with Hamas-Fatah.

But it’s there whether we want it or not so we may as well adjust and take what small advantage out of the situation as we can. One advantage relates Vs our relation to Syria and the Hezboallah. We got a lot of unpresecedented unofficial support from Saudi-Arabia and Egypt during the 2006 war (which makes our defective performance all the more galling). Nothing we should rely on but maybe something we can use in a small way.

“Arggg.. when will you people give us the credit of championing peace as the only vehicle to have our rights back ?”

Errr… When you stop supporting the terrorists who worked so hard to demolish what small chance the Oslo process had of creating a Palestinian state and incidently mudered hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians? When you don’t use Hezboallah as a proxy to bomb our cities-AFTER we withdrew from Lebanon (presumably to pressue us “peacefully” to return the Golan…?).

Seriously? Sorry but that sounds like a USSR propaganda line from back in the 50’s. Do you realy buy the nonsense your government spouts?

“You see this kind of logic ,will make some think that Israel will not respond but to the logic of power ,that will lead them to think of creating a resistance movement just like the one who kicked you out of Lebanon in 2000″

If we have any of that shit on the Golan-Syria border you will have a full scale war. And you WILL lose. If you try fighting the war via the same method of the Hezboallah (rocket battalions firing from fortified locations and civilian villages on our cities) then losing will involve the total destruction of your civil national infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage, transportation, ports, airports, bridges… and the Tabak dam)and perhaps the razing of Damascus. There will be no Egyptian-Iraqi-Morrocan-jordanian-Yemenite reinforcements to save you this time.

We lost in 2006 because we tried following some minimal humanitarian rules against an enemy who used that against us. That won’t happen again.

(((((Nope, I’m afraid that Syria only played Ball over the last 50 years with nations that demonstrated they had a VERY big stick (Turkey over the PKK).)))
“”"This is not accurate , will discuss it later..”"”"
Look forward to it…

7.The Palestinean refugees problem,
((((I The result? A Jewish majority in Mandatory Palestine, Jordan and the Golan WITHOUT Palestinian Refugees, warfare or conflict.)))

“”I didn’t get how is that possible ,unless you are suggesting that you are willing to incorporate the Palestinian community in ALL of Palestine and give them equal rights.”"

If 10 million Jews (those who did not die in the holocaust or were shot behind the Iron curtain) immigrated to Plaestine with no Arab violence or restrictions on immigration starting in 1922 the 500,000 Arabs then living there would have become a small minority- and Yes, one with all civil and communal rights.

If they had not violently resisted Jewish immigration and tried to kill us they would not have lost homes and lands. Every piece of land we acquired prior to 1948 was bought and paid for from willing sellers.

“”look ,it is one thing to deny the existence of a Palestinian state and nationality ,it is completely different thing to deny the historical existence and attachment of the Palestinians to their land and country.”"

Did neither. Read again what I wrote.

“”"So , can you tell me what is your vision to solving the Palestinian refugees in Syria ,we are not going to nationalize them like Jordan , and we can’t afford keeping them here permanently without a plan for how they can return to their land or be located to other territories.”"”

Why exactly can’t you nationalize them like Jordan and give them a chance at a normal life? The Palestinians in Jordan seem to be doing OK in spite of being a MUCH larger proportion of the population. You have, what? 250,000 refugees? You can’t handle that?

I would rather discuss MY proposed solution with A Palestinian but briefly my “plan” is built on three pillars:
a. 950,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands came to Israel (and France) from all over the Arab League. But 95% of Palestinian refuges ended up in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon, thereby heavily burdening these countries. I believe the rest of the Arab league, which benefited from consifcating the Wealth of their respective Jewish populations, should step up and take a fairer share of the burden.
b. UNWRA effectively subsidises keeping the refugees in their current condition. I would phase that out to be substituted by equivalent or greater incentives to those Palestinians who chose to make new lives as citizens in the Arab League states or in the Palestinian state- with equivalent subsidies to the states that take them in.
c. Providing those Palestinians whose yearning is for a national, as well as private, life a chance to live in a viable Palestinian state.
In practical terms this would mean:
1. Each Arab state pledging to accept a proportion of Palestinian refugees equivalent to it’s proportion of Jewish refugees (eg; Syria, which had 50,000 jewish refuges which is about 5% of the Jewish refugees should accept 5% of currently registered Palestinian refugees. Iraq, with 12% of Jewish refugees should accept 12%). This is the MAXIMUM number of refugees which each state will be willing to accept. In practice, since many refugees are naturalized Jordanians or would prefer to move to a Palestinian state this maximum will not be reached.
2. UNWRA will treble it’s refugee fund for the next 25 years (as a prelude to closing it off afterwards) by offering Cash incentives to each refugee who accepts naturalization in one of the host states accompanied by infrastructure construction for sites of their resettlement.
3. A peace treaty with Israel to form a viable Palestinian state which will enjoy trade and joint industrial areas that will help it absorb those refugees who chose to make a new life there (I suspect as many will leave for greener pastures- especially from Gaza).

8. Arab “Oil Power” and “Terror Power”
((((The point (Which many educated, moderate Arabs make in support of Arab nationalist claims) is that unless the West supports the Arabs and condemms Israel it will be subject to terrorist attacks by extremists (of which some are subsidized by Arab governments… Such as Syria).))))))

If you read my post again you will see that I did not claim that:
1. All (or most) the Muslim/Arab world was terrorist supporting.
2. All (or most) the Muslim/Arab world was morally culapable for terrorism.
3. AL-Qaeda was subsidized by Syria or other Arab states (though prior to 9/11th it was… and still is in a different way).
4. That terrorism was immoral and monstorous.

I would however love to dicuss each of these points separately… but not here.

My point WAS that:
a. The West has been the target of terrorist attacks by Palestinians and other Arab/Muslim terrorists since the 70’s.
b. They have mostly targeted those countries which supported Israel or better put did NOT support the Arabs.
c. Countries that then voted the “right” way stopped being targets… for a while.
d. This is a primary cause in the “international support” you base your claims on.

You will please ALSO note I am referring specifically to anti-WESTERN terrorism rather than anti-Israeli terrorism which is a different story which I would also LOVE to discuss on another opportunity.

“”Who told you this ,did you hear it from those educated Arabs themselves?”"
Ah…. Yes?? Practically every Arab columnist in the West makes the point (and very pointedly) that the best way the West can safeguard itself from terror attacks is to work towards “peace in the middle East”-on Arab terms. So did Hanan Ashrawi, Daoud kuttab and various others. Just open the Guardian or the Observer for crying out loud.

Or watch some Arab spokesman on BBC when the subject of (anti-western) terrorism comes on. He will immediately start talking about how it is all a response to Israel’s crimes and how a “just” solution of Palestinian grievances will end the attacks.

And going back in time look at Arafats “Olive branch and the Gun” speech at the UN. Who do you think he was threatening with the Gun if his demands were not met? Not us-THEM.

“I am getting the impression that you are REALLY not living in this region .
Syria was one ( and still is)of the major providers of intelligence and support to America in fighting terrorism after 9/11, that was admitted by high ranking American officials. we have absolutely nothing to do with those terrorists.”

True to Syria’s lack of involvement with AL-Qaeda (except for the Iraqi insurgents)… But I believe I made the distinction between Al-Qaeda and the earlier wave of international terrorism which you DID support. You kept on supporting those groups into the 90’s and still maintain influence over their remmenants.

(((The Arab oil embargo in 1973 which was used to pressure the West to pressure Israel to retreat from territories conquered during that war. It partially worked.)))

“”In our dictionary that is called SOLIDARITY, and don’t underestimate the support and sacrifices that can be given to a just Arab cause (like Syria’s).”"

Thank you for admitting my point. Which was NOT that the Oil Ambargo was “Wrong” (Just harmful to Billions of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict) but that it is a moving cause behind your international support… and that this support will vanish as soon as an alternate source of energy is found.

As for Arab “solidarity” for Syria’s cause…. Dude, this ain’t the 70’s. Back then we really had to face a coalition of Armies willing to fight for the Pan-Arab Ideal. There were Morrocan, Sudanese, Iraqi, Yemenite, Algerian and and Libyan regular army units all fighting us in 1973. But one aspect of the gradual buildup of national identities and interests is that this Ideal is swiftly disappearing. The Palestinian cause still stirs up the blood of young Arabs because of the humanitarian and religious aspects of the conflict.

But the Golan? The average Egyptian I spoke to didn’t even know what it was. Sorry dude. But Syria and it’s issues are barely a blip on the wider Arab world’s radar screen.

Sorry. You had your best chance to recover the Goaln through an Arab coalition in 1973- and it wasn’t good enough. It never will be again.

9. Iran/ Israeli WMDs
“I was not talking about Western double standards ,I was talking about YOUR double standards .”
You don’t see Israeli street demonstrations calling for Iran’s (or Syria’s. or Egypt’s or…) destruction do you? We see those demonstrations all the time- and not just in Iran. We had THREE wars in which we had to listen to radio Cairo and Damascus brag about how Tel-Aviv was in flames.

We are not a numerous people and nobody loves us. Our WMD’s are our insurance policy if you ever develop the coalition, technology and organization capable of overcoming our qualitative advantage. Or if Damascus decides that a chemical-biological missile shoot out will damage Israel at an acceptable price to Syria.

“”"are you for real trying to convince me that using nuclear weapons is a practical option to counter Iran’s threat.”"”

Iran’s NUCLEAR threat? Yes. But I will be glad if you offer me an alternative. DO you have one? That will WORK? So far iran has refused to suspend Uranium enrichment and allow free inspector access for negotiations. I don’t see that changing. And the trouble with MAD (deterrence through Mutually Assured Destruction) is that those guys are MAD.

Don’t you see the madness of your distorted self-centred logic( if we can call it one).
Of course we are afraid from Israeli nuclear capacity ,the fact that you haven’t use them doesn’t do anything to mitigate our fears .”"”

I regret that. But we never threatened to use them, officially or unofficially and have no REASON to use them unless our own existence is threatened- as it would be by an Iranian Nuke.

“be sure that ,No deal between Syria and Israel will be passed unless the issue of WMD in the region is addressed properly .we have to make the ME an area void of WMD and that is the only way we can end the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear project.”

If we have full Normaliztion with the Arab world I would be delighted to dismantle them… AFTER 30 years have proven that the normalization is working and if we can ncome up with a ironclad inspector regime. Until then we are keeping our insurance.

10. Negotiations now Vs later
“NO. we have actually agreed to resume negotiations from scratch as the Israelis wanted ,whereas the firm position of Syria was that negotiations must resume from the point they stopped at ,so this is in my view one major concession on our behalf.”

Are you telling me that Syria agreed to resume negotiations with NO preconditions? Including it’s (very skewed) interpretation of concessions made by previous Israeli negotiators? If so I haven’t heard. Do you have any document (or internal Syrian media report) to back you up?

“Ok, so are you telling me that the indications by your designate PM Levni ,that she wants to stop following the Syrian-Israeli track are justifiable ,to solve the problem between us will take a fraction of effort compared to the effort to solve the problem with the Palestinians ,and will make it much more easier to advance in that direction, also it will pave the way as I mentioned to a peace treaty with Lebanon.”

Easier for Syria Vs Israel. NOT easier for her to sell Vs the Israeli public. Potentially so hard to sell that she will then lack the political power to push towards establishing a border with the Palestinians. And we can’t afford to wait on THAT front.

11.. History, Palestinains and Israel:
“I actually see your point,it is true that the Palestinians themselves should hammer out the shape and form of their state and identity ,and they are the only ones that can create respected institutions and government that can defend their rights ,but also bear in mind that the quest for a comprehensible solution is crucial to ensuring permanent and just peace in the region and a first step towards achieving a warm peace between the nations of this region, so to have a separate peace treaty with neighbouring Arab nations should not hinder us from considering how the Palestinians will eventually have their independent state .”
True… But I don’t quite see your point.

12. Final words on rights/Final borders:
((((One Idea I heard for the Golan was to turn it into a UN supervised Circassian state for all Circassians in the middle East. A variation was to establish “Druzistan” in the Golan heights. How do you like them apples? )))

“”Actually I will welcome such thing( I don’t know why I forget to mention the circassian community, I know that they were one of the largest communities in the Golan) ,I am open to giving the area self rule ,under Syrian sovereignty ,but with autonomous administration ,that way it will give the Israelis more assurances for their presence in the Golan.”"

Whoa! Hey, if that self administration includes local free UN supervised voting rights for the Circassians, Druze, other Syrian returnees AND remaining Israelis for some kind of Hong-Kong style administration (including control of local law enforcement and courts for local crime) you have a deal Livni actually CAN sell relatively easily to the Israeli public!!

(Why? Because such a mini-autonomous state is far less likely to look for trouble, especially if it is the only Circassian state in the world. Also, in that mini-state remaining Israelis would be one of many minorities and feel more secure and participant in administration than a homogenous Arab-Sunni state. And if law enforcement remains local it means it’s original founding tone will be Israeli which will make for an easier transition).

But you’re still not getting the DMZ.

“”"Last word:
The picture you paint is very dim ,part of it is true ,part of it shows that you refuse to admit to your faults, this is a not so pleasant neighbourhood to be living in ( after Israel was established) for both of us .
However I see things are changing ,that maybe just my impression …
Anyway ,knowing that Israelis will have a chance to vote in a referendum on any peace agreement can you give me an estimate on the percentage that will vote in favour of the proposals that we have formulated in this thread.”"”

“What is a pessimist? An optimist who knows the facts”. Israelis cannot afford not to know the facts. We have too much to lose. And if you will examine my previous posts you will see I have no problem admitting my faults- it is simply that the same critical analysis I use on our own narrative BS also applies to yours. And yours has WAY more BS.

“About the Jews in Syria ,it is true that they had great fortune and thriving businesses ,they still do ,but on a smaller scale as most of them decided to go to Israel and their move was merely facilitated by the authorities ,something that I figure the Israeli should be thankful for .
However those who choose to stay here enjoy undeniable rights as any Syrian citizen and are accepted and treated like any other Syrian”

Remeber what I said about your narrative’s BS? My godfather is Syrian (from Haleb). his family fled on the back of a donkey over the Lebanese border with nothing but the clothes on their back in 1950 (made their way to Israel two years later) two steps ahead of the mob. Once the Syrian chaos solidified into a authoratarian regime The 4000 Syrian jews who did not get out in time were locked into fucking Ghettos where they suffered continuous violence, official opression, secret policemen in their synagouges, limitations on business and travel restirctions within Syria (forget about leaving Syria).

Jews who tried to leave were publicly hanged as spies.

They were allowed to leave only in the 1990’s (on condition they moved to the United states rather than Israel. about 60% made their way to Israel from there or turned around in Europe and came here). You can judge how much they were “Equal Syrian citizens” by the fact that only 27 old people chose to stay- in spite of being unable to take or sell their property for fair prices.

Thankful? for not shoving us all into gas chambers yes. For not being organized enough to keep most of us from leaving in time? yes. But thankful for transforming an organized and prosperous community which never threatened you into a tidal wave of refugees which had to be kept in tin shcks for years until houses, infrastructure, and services could be given them?

Thankful for compressing what should have been an orderly and gradual immigration process lasting a generation into a flight for life with no chance to make connections and finding jobs before coming to their new homes? Thankful for traumatizing the half of our population which could have been a comforting bulwark for the shattered remmenants of the holocaust?

Gods have mercy!

Yasser, seriously- EVERYTHING your official historical narrative tells you is wrong or made up. Any connection it has with reality is coincidential. I know. I’ve read it.

You don’t have to buy into our narative but PLEASE read some objective third party accounts of Middle Eastern Jewery and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Yasser, let me share with you some of the Wisdom or the observations I acquired over the years. First let me brief you about relevant aspects of my life. There were times when I was anti Semite, there were times when I was an Islamist, there were times when I was Arab Nationalist, there were times when I was Lebanese Nationalist, times when I was leftist, times when I was rightist, times when I was liberal, there were times when I was Zionist and finally I became a truth seeker, realist and a peace lover humanist trying to improve anything I come in touch with and to better any life I touch. This is what I am now, in one word a humanist but I am not a stupid-naive ideologist. In seeking and working for a better world and in pursuing justice, equality and freedom for all I tried everybody who claimed he had access to truth for a better world. I was trying to find peace of mind inside of me since the war occurring in the Middle East was raging inside of my mind and soul too. I, simply, had to understand. I have this mind which will not accept Bullshit as fact. I will tell you things as I see them without bias. Here are the things I observed in my life which I lived in the Middle East and which is not so old but rich with observations:
• Arabs are not pure angels and Jews are not pure demons. Both are human who have angels, demons and ordinary people among them.
• Arabs have an ideological misconception that absolute right is to their side and this destroys any possibility in their mind to seek genuine peace. The trouble is Arab history does not record the history as it occurred and does not recognize facts as it happened but narrates history selectively to support the absolute right ideology. I do not understand how Genocide of Jews in Arabian Peninsula is described as liberation? Or the deliberate expulsion of Jews from Arab world as a willful choice? In fact I do not understand that all Arabs do not know that 950,000 Jewish refugees were the outcome in 1948. I do not understand why the Arab mind does not observe that there are no Jewish refugees any more where as the Palestinians are still refugees.
• Cold and dishonest peace between Syria and Israel is not possible. Cold and dishonest peace is possible between Egypt and Israel but not possible between Syria and Israel.
• Many Arab communities seek the destruction of Israel but they are oblivious to the fact that this is a very dangerous and ominous process. The process itself is destructive to the Arab communities, obstructive to its advancement, forces the Arab communities to regress to a lower civilization stage, and makes the Arab communities hateful and resentful. In the end can you imagine Israel being destroyed without a nuclear inferno in Arabia or Iran?
• Israel and Jews are not ideologically seeking the destruction of Islam or Islamic communities and not seeking death of Arabs or Muslims. The misconception that Jews are ideologically seeking the death of Arabs or Muslims is contaminating the Arab minds and forcing it to adapt destructive-hallucinating attitude towards peace. Intelligent Arab minds sound ridiculous and unpractical under the spell of such contamination in thinking.
• I can only think of few Arabs who really seek peace with Israel. Most only think in the way of annihilating Israel and Jews. However, at the Israeli side most Israelis have an affinity for peace. Some of them have dreamer’s view of peace even.
• Many Arab communities are wasting huge amount of resources in the wars against Israel. That was necessary at one stage for many reasons. It is not necessary any more. I can see that at one stage of history that Israel needed to learn the limit of the powers it had and to learn modesty. This lesson is learned in Israel but do not trespass the red line which turns the Israeli community more hostile violent and unrestricted. Incidents in Acre (Akka) are first indices. How would you like to see a New Israel with 1948 spirit? Resources are needed to improve the lives of Arab populace.
• The hate that Arabs planted in the minds and souls of young Arab generations in the fifties against Jews created hate which redirected itself to the inside of the Arab communities. Communities like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians who embraced that hate were overwhelmed by the hate and consumed themselves by it. The hate backfired and it channelized itself against the Arab communities itself. Hate is an energy that humans cannot control or channelize. Hate is a curse.
• Yasser, do not down play the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust or during their expulsion from the Arab world. It serves no purpose. It is big from a human being to be compassionate and humanitarian. Nobody needs your compassion, it is you who needs it to be wiser and more intelligent.
• Seek peace with Israel and you will discover how life becomes easier. Jordanians and Egyptians did it. I do not think they are unhappy. I know why, but it is an observation for you to think of the answer.
Yasser, I do not know if I told you everything but maybe the most important. Need to get back to work and making a living. I admire your technical knowledge that you have in terms of political jargon needed for negotiations. I am at the Syrian side not based on tribal principle: me and my brother against my cousin and me and my cousin against the foreigner. It is not a matter of being on your side seeking peace only by accepting all your logic against Israeli Logic. I am at your side to seek peace and I will tell you how to achieve the peace and how to regain Syrian rights but I will not Bullshit you. I will tell you the truth and the Wisdom behind it. I memorize all the Arab rhetoric Yasser since decades and do not need you to remind me of it. Each point I mentioned above I can write pages supporting it in terms of historical background and practical examples and observations.
There is something which you don’t have and that is the Wisdom needed to break the barriers making peace possible. It is not a game of words where as you answer any issue raised by raising another issue to face it. It is not tit for tat.
My final most important conclusion for you as Syrian: Peace and regaining Golan is possible with Syria only if the Syrian government and people seek genuine and warm peace with Israel and Jews. Mr. Bashar Assad is intelligent and powerful enough to do it. There is only a psychological barrier for him to break and lotttttttttts of work. This final conclusion is not based on emotions Yasser, this is the result of years of observation and understanding mentalities of Middle Eastern, Arabs and Jews. It is not a general naïve statement that I just thought of at a whim.
Unless the real game is not to regain Golan but some other regional and power or imperial game. In that case the negotiations will go on nowhere just to buy time and popularity with the West.

Yoni, you seem to be getting agitated

One day there will be peace between Israel and her neighbors. Not just a long-term armistice as we have with Egypt. Not a bizzare situation where we have peace with the government but an armistice with the population – as we have with Jordan. Actual, real peace.

That peace with be made with Zionist Arabs. If they are not Zionists – that is, if they do not accept the basic national rights of the Jewish people – what sort of peace can be made with them?

This is what the whole Oslo company failed to grasp. You CAN make peace with enemies – when you’re stepping on their neck and accepting their unconditional surrender. All other kind of peace is made with friends.

A point you made that I strongly disagree with, by the way, Yoni – that the Palestinians are a threat to our existence. With all due to respect to the fantastic abilities of the Palestinians to blow themselves up, they can’t blow up quite fast or well enough to kill us all. The only way they can fulfill their genocidal dream is if we choose to use them as a means for ethno-national suicide.

Moreover, we can actually completely annihilate West Bank and Gaza with conventional weapons in a couple of hours. And that wouldn’t even tap too deeply into our munition warehouses.

And every year, we grow stronger both in absolute terms and in relation to our enemies. A disadvantageous peace just doesn’t make sense at this stage.

We can and should contain our enemies until such time that they’re ready for peace.

And if attacked, we should sahel the attacker before accepting peace.

Saar,

Well, I have low BS tolerance- to Jews as well as Arabs.

Yes, we can drive out the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza within, if not a few hours, at least within a two week period. Not by conventional weapons but simply by turning off the water accompanied by artillary bombardement.

And that abillity, accompanied by rapidly dwindling alternatives to that “solution” is PRECISELY what IS threatening our existence. How exactly do you see Israel and Israelis carrying on after we do that? A pariah state with no natural resources surrounded by unstable hate filled enemies with nihilist extremists itching to get their finger on nuclear weapons that will destroy us even we take them down with us?

Yes, Oslo was a mistake. A terrible mistake. But it HAD to be made because we MUST explore every barely conceivable option before we leap into the abyss. If, god forbid, we ever do run out of options, it has to be clea:
1.To ourselves that we tried everything else so that we can live with ourselves and future generations will not be shamed at being Israeli Jews.
2. To at least some portions of the international community that we did not do what we did because we are mad dogs that are a threat to the rest of humanity (themselves included) but because we were truely left with no choice.
3. To at least the ruling elites of our neighbors that we are not planning to do unto them what we did to the Palestinians or they WILL risk everything to take us down because THEY will feal that they have no option.

And I think that we STILL have options that do not involve genocide or ethnic cleansing.I am in favor of unilateral CIVILIAN disengagement along the lines of the seperation barrier (That is evacuating the 60,000 Settlers East of the barrier- AND the 25,000 Palestinians to the West of it). After we do that I believe we can maintain a limited MILLITARY occupation of a few strongpoints on the Trans-Samarian highway (in the remains of the evacuated settlements) and the Jordan valley to reduce the opportunity of the West bankers to acquire rockets/anti-Tank missile and to maintain our capability of preventing a conventional invasion from the East. This can be done in a way which does NOT involve roadblocks or breaking up the territorial continuity of the West bank.

If we let Abu-Mazen know our plans in advance and unofficialy coordinate the disengagement (and throw every hamas supporter we can find into Gaza) there is a CHANCE he will be able to maintain public order and unified rule after we are gone.

Deterrence against future attacks by the PA and renegade factions CAN be achieved- if we base it on threats of annexation/expulsion rather than occupation/assasination/arrests. If we annex a square kilometer after each terrorist attack (and expel any Palestinians living there) and KEEP doing it in spite of international outrage I think the PA WILL stop the attacks. to slightly moderate and graduate this policy we can demand disproportionate financial recompensation, handover of weapons or wanted men or excecution of those responsible for attacks in Lieu of annexation.

No, this is not a utopian vision. But I think it has a 80% chance of laying down the framework for a stable relationship that can evolve into something more civilized and normal. And it does not involve moral suicide.

Saar,

Well, I have low BS tolerance- to Jews as well as Arabs.

Yes, we can drive out the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza within, if not a few hours, at least within a two week period. Not by conventional weapons but simply by turning off the water accompanied by artillary bombardement.

And that abillity, accompanied by rapidly dwindling alternatives to that “solution” is PRECISELY what IS threatening our existence. How exactly do you see Israel and Israelis carrying on after we do that? A pariah state with no natural resources surrounded by unstable hate filled enemies with nihilist extremists itching to get their finger on nuclear weapons that will destroy us even we take them down with us?

Yes, Oslo was a mistake. A terrible mistake. But it HAD to be made because we MUST explore every barely conceivable option before we leap into the abyss. If, god forbid, we ever do run out of options, it has to be clear:
1.To ourselves that we tried everything else so that we can live with ourselves and future generations will not be shamed at being Israeli Jews.
2. To at least some portions of the international community that we did are not mad dogs that are a threat to the rest of humanity (themselves included) but normal people with no alternatives.
3. To at least the ruling elites of our neighbors that we are not planning to do unto them what we did to the Palestinians or they WILL risk everything to take us down because THEY will feel that they have no option.

And I think that we STILL have options that do not involve genocide or ethnic cleansing.I am in favor of unilateral CIVILIAN disengagement along the lines of the seperation barrier (That is evacuating the 60,000 Settlers East of the barrier- AND the 25,000 Palestinians to the West of it). After we do that I believe we can maintain a limited MILLITARY occupation of a few strongpoints on the Trans-Samarian highway (in the remains of the evacuated settlements) and the Jordan valley to reduce the opportunity of the West bankers to acquire rockets/anti-Tank missile and to maintain our capability of preventing a conventional invasion from the East. This can be done in a way which does NOT involve roadblocks or breaking up the territorial continuity of the West bank.

If we let Abu-Mazen know our plans in advance and unofficialy coordinate the disengagement (and throw every hamas supporter we can find into Gaza) there is a CHANCE he will be able to maintain public order and unified rule after we are gone.

Obviously, in the absence of active occupation we will have to rely almost exclusively on deterrence to prevent future attacks. Deterrence against future attacks by the PA and renegade factions CAN be achieved- if we base it on threats of annexation/expulsion rather than occupation/assasination/arrests. If we annex a square kilometer after each terrorist attack (and expel any Palestinians living there) and KEEP doing it in spite of international outrage I think the PA WILL stop the attacks. To slightly moderate and graduate this policy we can demand disproportionate financial recompensation, handover of weapons or wanted men or excecution of those responsible for attacks in Lieu of annexation (with higher “exchange rates” to return annexed territory as time goes by).

No, this is not a utopian vision. But I think it has a 80% chance of laying down the framework for a stable relationship that can evolve into something more civilized and normal. And it does not involve moral suicide.

Ibraheem,

As long as I’m negotiating a Syrian-Israeli peace treaty with Yasser I was wondering if I could do the same with you… or a t least bounce some Ideas.

From what you wrote I understand that all Lebanes, hezboallah opponents included, are religously convinced that the Sheba farms are lebanese. From what Yasser wrote I understand that Syrians do not exactly feal the same way. As an Israeli I don not give much as a damn about the farms themselves (with are what? 1 square kilometer?) but DO care very much about the principle of the thing.

We took the farms with the rest of the Golan in 1967 when we were NOT fighting Lebanon (which stayed neutral). They never claimed the farms for themselves prior to 1982 (we would have handed them over if they had- why look for trouble from a neautral?) until we withdrew from Lebanon in 2000-AFTER the UN confirmed our withdrawal to the international border.

If we give in on this we open ourselves up to infinite outrageous demands in the future- just like the DMZ.

But what if we make an exchange? In 1967 we also took the Village of Rajar (by the inhabitants request). But after the 1982 invasion the villagers started building to the North, effectively annexing parts of Lebanon. When we withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to the international border half the village (some of whose residents accepted Israeli citizenship like the Golan Druze) inside Lebanon. While the IDF does not allow the Hezboallah in neither does it or Israeli police patrol the Northern half of the village.

This is obviously a big border control problem (mostly for drug smuggling rather than terrorists) and unfair to the villagers.

So here is my Idea:

1. We hand over the Shebba farms to lebanon under the condition that Lebanon does NOT hand or discuss handing over the farms to Syria until and unless we reach a peace agreement with them.
2. In return Lebanon agrees to a plebescite by Rajar to determine whether ALL the village will be in Israel or whether ALL the village will be in Lebanon. Either way is fine with us but the half and half situation is troublesome.

How does this sound? Would the average Lebanese think this reasonable thereby depriving Hezboallah of a casus Belli?

Yoni, Ghajar and Shebaa meant nothing to the average Lebanese. Before 2000 nobody heard about them in Lebanon. Between 1969 and 1975 we, the average Lebanese, heard about Orqoob as Fateh Land given by the Lebanese government to the PLO to stage its attacks against Israel. Not by the free will of the Government but by the coercion of PLO and many other Arab countries. Some of the Lebanese participated in this mistake. As I said earlier hate was unleashed. Of course PLO forces were trickled through the borders into Lebanon by the Syrians at that time .That was the trigger that blew Lebanon up. When Hezbollah succeeded in making the IDF withdraw from Lebanon those 2 places surfaced to existence out of nowhere.
Over the years HA patiently ran a war with the IDF. Along the way it developed:
• Confidence that it can force Israel to do anything it wants via a battery of mini-calculated skirmishes that would bug and keep Israel busy. All they needed was a reason for sustaining the skirmishes and acceptable level of retaliation from the Israel.
• Pride that it will make Israel abide by the letter of how each neighboring country should treat another neighboring country. Full adherence to the border line, full respect for the border line trespassing, full respect to water rights etc…
• Pride that it will make Israel respect the lives and property of the villagers at the Lebanese side.
There was nothing wrong with those targets from a national point of view. Many parties provided HA with the information about Ghajar and shebaa farms. Some locals and some were the Syrians. Now at that stage everybody thought that HA could go forever carrying out skirmishes with IDF as long as they had a legal justification. This was needed for the local population in south Lebanon, for the Lebanese public in general and for the International community. Shebaa is partially Syrian and partially Lebanese. The owners are Sunnis I guess and the Sunni religious “Waqf” owns some of it. They have legal registration papers. The Topographical maps disappeared from the place it was in and I do not want to say where it disappeared from. So there was vagueness about who owns which part between Syria and Lebanon. When a poor surveyor started surveying the Syrian-Lebanese borders few miles away he was shot dead. So the border line was meant to be kept vague so as to keep the issue between HA and Israel alive. I am not saying that HA is a victim but I am sure HA had an agenda to keep the conflict with Israel live as long as possible.
In 2006 things went out of control and Israeli-HA war broke out. HA populace swallowed the results of the war silently but did not digest it. Such “Victory”, claimed by HA, is not being well digested. But I am not sure of anything when it comes to HA, though I know that they care for their populace and that they are not as suicidal as Alqaeda for example.
I have to leave now and I will tell you tomorrow about my opinion, or, lol, about the negotiations between me and you over Shebaa and Alghajar.

I am looking forward to skiing in the Golan resorts some time soon, and drinking your beer, I tried it (a bottle with Hebrew all over it) and it was nice ,a word about me I am a secular humanist ,so you have to bear in mind that I aspire to live in peace with you and all our neighbours ,not because I am an Arab Zionist ,but the thing is I am trying to carve out a compromise that would be accepted by the Syrian part. you don’t want me to mislead you into thinking that we can accept some concession ,that NO Syrian government /regime /democracy will accept and I mean NONE ,as in NEVER.
Let me tell you I am learning so much from this discussion, and I believe this is a great chance to have people-to-people dialogue, furthermore it is a great exercise in confidence building , and an open forum to hear each other’s concerns.
You see ,the corner stone here(from our perspective) is that the Golan issue has very deep emotional and National pride roots in the Syrian psyche. you have to recognize our dignity and legitimate rights .it is not ALL about the land.

I believe it is in your own best interest to rethink everything you were taught in school about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Better yet assume it is all wrong and start from scratch by reading three separate and opposing accounts.

Believe me I’ve done that ,and will continue to do ,otherwise you wouldn’t find me here to talk peace in the first place:)

History/1923 international boundary:
Yasser, you are DEFINITELY not going to convince me that Syria has ANY legal claim to ANY land west of the 1923 international boundary..

Well I am not trying to (anymore you may add!). and I am not willing to accept your “unchallenged” claim to this piece of land .WHY SHOULD I? International law? Your MIGHT/THREATS. .

Look,that what negotiations are for, you still didn’t answer me about the role of the UNDOF, I’ll tell you what , Scratch that bit about a buffer zone, NOW give me your vision about how we can settle the dispute over the territory west of the 1932 boundaries.

WE are the ones taking a security risk by giving up the Golan. YOU do not need a DMZ from us- the opposite is true.

Don’t you think we also have LEGITIMATE security concerns vis-à-vis the Israeli side??

” moreover will guarantee access to the Kinneret for our side as for your side.”
Over my dead body!!!! You are NOT getting access to the Kinneret. You had none in 1947 and you will have none in 2017.
NO.

WHY NOT!!

access was guaranteed to us(fishing boats/civilian use) under international law and under British – Fresh friendship good neighbors agreement ,so why would you deny us that ,remember that it was the reason why peace negotiations fall apart in 2000,I can make the case that you don’t want peace( to a neutral third party that is ,and to world public opinion) if you are not flexible in this issue ,and of course again we have to have a committed third party .

Neutral third party

Look,this is very important issue ,to better illustrate my point ,I just don’t assume that you do really think that Syria will sign a deal with Israel WITHOUT having major economical benefits/acceptance and recognition of its role in the region and compensation for its part in taking in the Palestinian refugees(the matter which I’ll discuss in further detail later). You HAVE to do your part in persuading the Americans to come to the table ,this is very crucial ,I am sure you appreciate this need.
Of course having American guarantees to security arrangements is important to Israel (early warning systems ,administering surveillance posts .etc.)

Pre-1967 border skirmishes.

You see I proposed that we forget about the past ,but you insisted on recounting what happened ,I was just depending on the things I mentioned/refered to, to back my point ,but I was primarily giving you our SIDE of the story ,and from your response it seems that you are NOT willing to confess to any wrong doing on your side ,that’s no way to have a fruitful discussion.
I admit we had an irrationally aggressive attitude, can you also see that your part have expansionism ambitions that were legally unfounded.

The bit about Draining the Hula lake being an internal Israeli affair, well can you tell me the reasons for your not so eco-friendly measure?

Might Vs Right/Sunni-Shia tension

Well, if I may I would like to give you OUR dichotomy/ terminology about the region, it is along the lines of the camp who hold on to Arab rights and refuses to succumb to threats and intimidations ,versus the camp who have sold the Arab “CAUSE” and is willing to bargain on intrinsic national rights and interests.take a moment to think of this, then consider how this kind of thinking is the REAL driving force behind Syria’s policies for a very long time. it will certainly give you a peek into the Syrian policy making dynamics ,then take a moment to see that our side (who ever that maybe and any party is welcome to join) is gaining ground and momentum while the grand plans of America for a “new ME” are blundering.

Errr… When you stop supporting the terrorists who worked so hard to demolish what small chance the Oslo process had of creating a Palestinian state and incidently mudered hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians? When you don’t use Hezboallah as a proxy to bomb our cities-AFTER we withdrew from Lebanon (presumably to pressue us “peacefully” to return the Golan…?).

Your point has been made ,(and it’s a valid one), I am not going to play the advocate of the devil here. However I’ll ask you to take a moment and think of this from the perspective that I described in the last paragraph ,think of it in abstract terms of resisting the occupier V.S succumbing and making concessions to him.
Now bear in mind that RESISTANCE have many aspects and meanings(only one of them is military force) but I am sure you got my point.

If we have any of that shit on the Golan-Syria border you will have a full scale war. And you WILL lose.

Look ,don’t think for a moment we are afraid from you ,sorry to be arrogant but that tone is in no way conducive to reaching a settlement and in way will make us less aggressive ,in fact it has the potential of making us the more hostile towards you .
The reasons we don’t attack you is solely a pragmatic one ,also we can’t afford constant bombardment of our cities ,and the public will not tolerate its life being disrupted and destroyed(that suggest we have a public opinion ,believe me WE HAVE).

We lost in 2006 because we tried following some minimal humanitarian rules against an enemy who used that against us. That won’t happen again.

WHAT!, please don’t tell me that the scores of innocent civilians who perished by your use of not-so-intelligent missiles ,and the people of the south of Lebanon who have to live with the nightmare of cluster bombs scattered all over their land are beneficiaries of your so-called respect of humanitarian rules. what a shame!!

The Palestinean refugees problem

It is not whether I can handle the refugees, it Is both 1- Do I want to ?
2-Why should I?
I am willing to show some flexibility in this regard ,but I have to have assurances and economical compensation which should be provided by a neutral third party .
Now if you agree with me on that last bit( I am pretty sure you do) we can proceed to discuss your plan:

I would rather discuss MY proposed solution with A Palestinian but briefly my “plan” is built on three pillars:
a. 950,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands came to Israel (and France) from all over the Arab League. But 95% of Palestinian refuges ended up in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon, thereby heavily burdening these countries. I believe the rest of the Arab league, which benefited from consifcating the Wealth of their respective Jewish populations, should step up and take a fairer share of the burden.
T
hat seems reasonable ,and we can find ways to carry out this relocation and compensation part you talk about.
b. UNWRA effectively subsidises keeping the refugees in their current condition. I would phase that out to be substituted by equivalent or greater incentives to those Palestinians who chose to make new lives as citizens in the Arab League states or in the Palestinian state- with equivalent subsidies to the states that take them in.

I am pleased with the rule the UNWRA is playing ,I think we should not give that up ,however your suggestion for me is perfectly acceptable ,I am open to naturalize any Palestinian who demonstrate that he is building his life in Syria and respecting Syrian laws and shows willingness to be assimilated in the society.

c. Providing those Palestinians whose yearning is for a national, as well as private, life a chance to live in a viable Palestinian state

Very well.

See things are not so complicated we can forge a deal when there is will and determination to reach peace ,I really think that your proposals are VERY reasonable I don’t know why Ramzi would object to them ,I am sure the Syrian official rule will have no problem with them of course don’t forget the economical benefits/compensations I mentioned earlier.

Arab “Oil Power” and “Terror Power”
“”Who told you this ,did you hear it from those educated Arabs themselves?”” Ah…. Yes?? Practically every Arab columnist in the West makes the point (and very pointedly) that the best way the West can safeguard itself from terror attacks is to work towards “peace in the middle East”-on Arab terms. So did Hanan Ashrawi, Daoud kuttab and various others. Just open the Guardian or the Observer for crying out loud.

They are not saying that : if you don’t solve the ME ,you will have planes crashing in your cities.
They are rather suggesting that ,by solving the ME conflict and addressing the roots of the problem and the unfairness suffered in Palatine you will deny the fanatic fundamentalist from their claim and excuses to use terror and the chance of exploiting this issue to advance their crazy agenda ,and recruit young misled people to their agenda .

But the Golan? The average Egyptian I spoke to didn’t even know what it was. Sorry dude. But Syria and it’s issues are barely a blip on the wider Arab world’s radar screen.

Are we having a psychological warfare here!

Ahem.

Yoni, Syria holds a central role in all the Arab world ,it certainly have influence and respect in Lebanon and the Palestinians,I am not talking in political terms,mind you ,I am just pointing out a fact ,if you wish to ignore it ,fine ,but the role of Syria in the region is admitted by all world powers( refer to the comment of the Romanian president who visited Syria lately ) all the world recognize our pivotal role in the region , and it is TRUE.

Iran/ Israeli WMDs ,
But I will be glad if you offer me an alternative. DO you have one? That will WORK?

Well,I am not going to tackle the Iranian Nuclear threat without some sort of indication from the Israelis that they are willing to get aboard on a deal that will make our region void of WMD.
The Iranians are MAD ,yes they are , I really don’t understand for the life of me how they left all areas that a country can develop and advance in and focused on uranium enrichment ,I am sure that will base a very solid ground for accusing them of having ulterior motives .
So, are you telling me that the raid against Syria last year was justifiable ? can you tell me why AND base your argument on a rational legal ground. thank you.

Negotiations now Vs later

At least ,You have to give a credit for trying to reach out ,don’t you .
As for the need to resume negotiations without pre-conditions ,both parties should be willing to ,after all we don’t view ourselves as weak or in a hurry to have a settlement ,I am aware you do not either ,so lets be courageous and not fear to take intiative and make the first step.

Easier for Syria Vs Israel. NOT easier for her to sell Vs the Israeli public. Potentially so hard to sell that she will then lack the political power to push towards establishing a border with the Palestinians. And we can’t afford to wait on THAT front.

Man are you kidding me ,we are reaching a solution right here by just chatting and in less than a WEEK!
I don’t know what better illustration you want??!!

History, Palestinains and Israel:

I was talking about the need to have a comprehensive solution (not comprehensible, sorry).there is no way the Syrians will let go of their brethren in Palestine,not gonna happen ,we will not accept a deal that will leave the Palestinian issue to be figured on its own without us being there for the Palestinians ,if you believe otherwise, you are mistaken.
I am encouraged by the fact that you accept the two states solution ,now we have to have all the parties committed to realizing that end ,the Syrian side will not accept to be left out of that process.

Final words on rights/Final borders:
Whoa! Hey, if that self administration includes local free UN supervised voting rights for the Circassians, Druze, other Syrian returnees AND remaining Israelis for some kind of Hong-Kong style administration (including control of local law enforcement and courts for local crime) you have a deal Livni actually CAN sell relatively easily to the Israeli public!!

GREAT! You seem to be reading my thoughts ,actually I was thinking of Hong-Kong the other day and thought what a great model to follow!

(Why? Because such a mini-autonomous state is far less likely to look for trouble, especially if it is the only Circassian state in the world. Also, in that mini-state remaining Israelis would be one of many minorities and feel more secure and participant in administration than a homogenous Arab-Sunni state. And if law enforcement remains local it means it’s original founding tone will be Israeli which will make for an easier transition).

I agree.

And also think of the wonderful possibilities the Golan holds for people to meet from the other side, to have a good time in the magnificent nature of the area and with so much to do and so many attractions it will be definitely an ideal place for tourism and cultural diversity .

Ok, so you didn’t answer my question about the people who will vote for the agreement , I believe now you have a better idea about it.
Shalom.

Yoni – I absolutely agree with you. My point was that the Palestinians have no ability to actually destroy us. They are not causing us much damage, in lives or property. Were they to acquire such an ability, it could be easily taken away from them.

The Palestinians are not a threat. They’re a nuisance, once that’s being effectively contained by the security barrier and roadblocks. The main trouble the Palestinians cause us is the growing distance between hilltop dwellers and the rest of Israel. And that we, as a society, can take care of.

We don’t have to do anything with the Palestinians but contain them one way or another. I favor increased automatization of day-to-day security operations, and IDF top brass seems to be with me on this. This will, eventually, remove troops from Yehuda and Shomron (when roadblocks and outposts are fully automated). The security barrier will be completed and will serve as a de-facto border of a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

Ibraheem,
the points you raise are important and must not be overlooked, however I have a rather unrelated remark,I just want to point out that being anti Semite is being anti Arab,this is from an academical point of view .
Arabs are Semites ,our two languages Arabic and Hebrew share many common charactristics because they stem from the same sourse ,maybe we should start to note the things that bring us together rather than the things that divide us.

Irrelevent to the subject of anti-semitism. The term was originally invented in Vienna during the heydays of the Austro-hungarian empire and to avoid the stigma attached to backwards seeming religous predjudice used a “modern” ethnogrthic terminology.

However, our exact point of origin was irrelevent to the Europeans- they just hated Jews (Certainly Hitler and the Nazis did not view semitic Arabs as they did Jews) . Had our origin been in India, like the Gypsies, it would have been termed “anti-dravidism”. If you prefer we can use the term Jew-hatred but since we all know what we mean does it realy matter?

I will agree with you however that we need to start noting the things that bring us together…. starting with an Arab recognition that we are as native to the Middle East as they are (if not more…) and that we are returning to our home soil rather than “Colonizing/Settling” exclusive Arab soil. As you noted our language has the same origin…

When I am finished preparing a PhD presentation I look forward to returning to negotiating an Israeli-Syrian-Lebanese peace agreement with you….

Peace, Y’all.

Yasser,

The presentation went well- arguing with you must be good practice!

Anyway since I’m in a good mood I thought I would focus on some of our positive Ideas first and only then tell you why you are wrong about everything else…

a. Israel-Syria peace agreement:
How about you take this as a draft and add/substract what you think is appropriate?:

1. One country, two systems:

The Golan, while returning to Syrian sovereignty (Payment of Taxes, border control, customs, etc) will retain administrative and legal autonomy. It will be known as the autonomous Circassian-Druze-Jewish province of the Golan (or whatever you prefer to call it).

a. Languages:

The official languages of the Golan will be Circassian, Arabic and Hebrew. All roadsigns, local administrative documents, etc, must provide for all three languages.

b. Democracy: All legal long-term residents of the Golan over 18 will be eligible to vote for a provincial assembly responsible for local legistlation, local law-enforcement and courts, tax-collection, zoning regulations, water resource administration, etc.

c. Residency: legal residents will be counted as anyone paying local taxes above XXX (some kind of minimum level indicating actually LIVING in the Golan) for a period of three years.

d. Legal: The current civil-criminal legal framework(Ie; israeli law) used as a template for local law but will be subject to change by the local assembly.

e. Israeli settlements: All Israelis and Druze currently living on the Golan shall be allowed to remain and retain property and CULTIVATED or IMPROVED land provided they acknowledge Syrian soverienty and accept Syrian citizenship. Both groups and their children shall be allowed to retain dual Israeli citizenship.

f. Syrian 1967 refugees:
All Arab, Armenian, Kurd, Circassian etc refugees from 1967 and descendents will be encouraged to return over a 7-year period with Israel, Syria and the U.N providing EQUAL subsidies for their integration into the Golan economy. Subsidies will be evenly divided into individual recompensation for a quit-claim (for those who have made their lives elsewhere and are not interested in returning) and infrastructure/housing construction for returnees. During that period further Immigration or land purchase by non-returnees in the Golan will be prohibited*.

* This is intended to provide an organized framework for a return that will minimize secterian tension and make sure that priority is given to returnees and circassians.

g. Circassians/Druze:
Similliar encouragement will be offered non-native Circassians and Druze from Syria, Jordan and Israel. However, their immigration into the Golan will start 4 years after the agreement. This phase will last a further 7 years.*

*Point is to provide a selective advantage for Circassians and Druze in order to ensure the Golan is a heterogenous region and thus autonomous in spirit as well as law.

h. Land: Unimproved land will be subject to eminent domain and sufficient portions will be alotted for housing/infrastructure for 1967 returnees. Land used for cattle grazing by Israelis will be subject to eminent domain for a period of 7 years (to be recompensated equally by Syria, UN and Israel) provided it is USED for more intensive purposes within 1 year of consifcation. Unused consifcated land will revert to previous owner. Land allocation for returnees will be made under a joint Syrian-Israeli-UN comission with UN representative (who must be approved by both sides each year) providing final vote.

Current nature reserves shall be retained.

i. Entry Exit/customs:

ENTRY through both “Mainland” Syria AND Israel will be without cross border toll, customs or any fee whatsoever. EXIT shall be without custom payments but Each country may impose whatever security measures it sees fit.

j. Future residency.

Golan will be open to immigration from both Israelis and Syrians at the end of a 12 year period (for reabsorbation of 1967 returnees and Druze/Circassian immigrants).

2. Borders (the part you will not like):

The autonomous province shall include Quneitra and the current UN DMZ. ***In addition, the Druze-Inhabited Syrian portion of the Hermon will be included in the autonomous province, provided inhabitants indicate interest via plebescite***. In the West the border shall be the 1923 international border.

*** again to manitain the heterogenous nature of the province.

3. Water: Current Water allocations between Israel, Jordan and Syria on the Jordan will remain as they are (modified 40%-40%-20%). But Syria will allocate from it’s share additional resources for the Golan’s increased population.

4. Security:

a. The Golan shall be demillitarized of Syrian troops in it’s entirety with the exception of local law enforcement and 100 federal Syrian gendarmanes armed with handguns.

b. israel shall also maintain two observation posts (with unarmed personnel) on the current Israeli-Syrian border. these posts shall be evacuated at the end of a 10- year period and handed over to the U.N.

c. Israel will posses three extraterritorial 1 square kilometer fortified enclaves on top of the roads leading up to the Golan from Israel (About 2 Km’s east of border). Soldiers in these enclaves may not leave them while armed (except on the roads leading to and from Israel). The enclaves shall be evacuated at the end of a 10-year period.

d. Israel shall maintain a manned (but unarmed) observation post on the Hermon for a 20-year period at which point it will be handed to the U.N.

e. Current Israeli fortifications on the Golan, and specifically on the current border, will not be actively maintained but nor will they be dismantled or put to other use for a 15-year period. Enforcement and patrol will lie in the hands of the U.N.*

*This is so if a war still breaks out and a race to the Golan does develop the IDF will have a fortified line to hold and a chance to get their in time in spite of presumed anti-tank rocket teams lying in ambush.

f. East of the Golan to the suburbs of Damascus will be split into three demillitarized zones of decreasing severity:

f.1. will extend for 20 kilometers eastward and be denuded fortifications (including air defense). Millitary presence will be restricted to two unmechanized Infantry brigades with no artillary or tanks.

f.2. Will retain fortifications and air defenses (and artillary) but not include any Tanks or armoured units.

f.3. To be limited to two armored divisions.

5. “End of conflict”

Upon signing this agreement Syria will issue a quit claims to all other potential issues Vs Israel.

6. 1948 refugees- Syria and Israel will signify their acceptance of recompensation-resettlement plan (as I earlier described). Full application will await Arab League and/or PA approval.

However, Israel will immediately sign a quit claim for Jewish property lost in Syria and Syria will alot 50,000 Palestinian refugees Syrian citizenship (as a prelude to the full 5% to be deducted from future full application) on the condition of U.N funding to the program of integration.

7. Normalization:

Arab league: Upon signing this agreement, Lebanon and The still hostile mebers of the Arab league will all sign peace treaty and bidirectional “most favored nation” trade pacts with Israel.

U.S and West: All sanctions Vs Syria will be lifted granting resolution of other outstanding issues (Iraqi insurgents…. not that this will be an issue by the time THIS agreement is signed).

Can anybody see if I missed anything?

ANyway, I think this sort of agreement would have the support of 70%+ of Israelis TODAY and that the majority will last at least for a decade. Beyond that? too hard to predict. I doubt Israelis will consider ANY kind of sharing arrangement 25 years from now but who can tell the future?

Yoni i will be away for around a week, so we will catch up when i come back. Take care.

I am glad that your presentation went well ,now we can focus on the REAL business..:)
I’m starting to learn Hebrew ,I am finding this language very intriguing.
Yoni ,I hope that you have given some thought to what I mentioned about the Golan being a very emotional issue instilled in the consciousness of every Syrian citizen.
with so much at stake ,I know that I am bound by unchanging principles that guide the Syrian stance whoever assumes power in Syria ,this position is established on two pillars :
No access to the Kinneret=No deal
No recognition of UNSC 242 and the line of the 4 th of June 1967=No deal.
Please note ,the language I used to frame those two pillars .
I didn’t say Syrian claim or Syrian sovereignty, I said SYRIAN ACCESS ,which as I mentioned in my last post was guaranteed for us under international law and British-French agreements.
Following the same manner,I didn’t use the term Israeli withdrawal to the line of the 4 th of June 1967 or Israel abiding of UNSCR 242 ,I used the word RECOGNITION, my aim was to be as flexible as I can in pushing to a settlement ,but a one that can hold the test of the Syrian public opinion .I am afraid that this is the farthest I can go in offering a compromise. This is the bottom line as far as Syrians are concerned; if you can accommodate those two points we can proceed to discuss your well-written plan.

One country, two systems:

This needs experts to work out the details ,your ideas seems to be well thought-through ,my common sense tells me that your plan is acceptable and I approve of the points you make ,of course further discussion will make the points clearer and more convenient to both parties,and many improvements can be made with time.

Borders (the part you will not like):
The autonomous province shall include Quneitra and the current UN DMZ. ***In addition, the Druze-Inhabited Syrian portion of the Hermon will be included in the autonomous province, provided inhabitants indicate interest via plebescite***. In the West the border shall be the 1923 international border.

LEGALLY ,I am not opposed to this arrangement ,I actually see Ibraheem’s point in that peace will bring dividends on the Syrian part that far exceed the price of compromise ,and being a peace loving person I will not object to this point, HOWEVER ,from a POLITICAL stance ,you have to address the two principles I mentioned in the start of this post , If you show that you are considerate in dealing with this issue ,I think we have been able to overcome the last and main obstacle towards a final deal.

Water: Current Water allocations between Israel, Jordan and Syria on the Jordan will remain as they are (modified 40%-40%-20%). But Syria will allocate from it’s share additional resources for the Golan’s increased population.

I believe this is unjust for Syria ,nevertheless I will not go into detail .

Security:

I am no expert in this ,may I ask you first what were your PhD presentation about ,was it about military science!
I told you that we have to have a vision for peace ,those details should not be allowed to divert us from the main goal ,I’ll proceed to the Normalization part which is very important .

Normalization

After the enmity status ends between the two countries. the two side will agree to cease all relations/support to any entity that seek to damage or is hostile to the other side .the Israeli part will facilitate the exchange of expertise and knowledge in all fields, both academical and practical ,there would be a free trade agreement that will encourage the trade between the two countries and Israel should endeavour to redress the negative image of Syria portrayed in the media and help to rectify the Syrian-American relationship.

so now that Israel is heading for an early elections, can you give us more info about the direction thing are going?
and what do you think the most likely outcome will be.

Yoni,
a question :
do you think we can submit this proposal for a peace agreement to some research center or think tank in the U.S,or in Europe, maybe we can obtain funds to travel to the U.S and promote our ideas and further push a deal ?
or just to make our ideas known for people to see that it is not impossible to reach a reasonable peace deal ,based on logical and historical facts rather than simply being a manouver to buy time and political games by our leaders.
do you think this is a plausible suggestion?

Yasser, I am afraid my pHD is in cancer immunology not international relations…

History and politics is my hobby rather than profession though sometimes I think I chose the wrong field. My own connections are rather meager though I will sound them out.

But maybe some other people on this blog have the requisite connections and might offer suggestions. Certainly I noticed some other posters mentioning visits and interactions with various relevent groups.

Any takers?

As far as the details go I have no probelm with you addendums (save borders… I’ll get to that). I will however note that the section on “Israel should endeavour to redress the negative image of Syria portrayed in the media and help to rectify the Syrian-American relationship” contains a number of assumptions that are… iffy.

Americans largely percieve Syria negatively beacuase of the character of the government, support for the Iraqi insurgency, public utterences by it’s leaders, alliance with Iran…. It is not that AIPAC does not try to exploit this negative image to Israel’s benefit but it is not the cause behind it.

My point is that while a peace-treaty with Israel CAN be used as a springboard to change Western perceptions of Syria, the change of perceptions largely depends on subsequent realighnment with percieved Western interests (that is join the Saudi-Egyptian Axis Vs Iran…) and end of support for radical Sunnis in Iraq and other anti-Western groups (Hezboallah included. the bombing of the U.S marine barracks in Beirut is still VERY touchy for the Americans).

In the long term only succesful internal reform will make the West LIKE Syria. I mean Egypt has been in the Western camp for 30 years now since it defected from the USSR but it is not viewed favorably by the public. Why? becuase the system of governance, repression of religous minorities (yes, I know things are different in Syria because the minorities rule but…), the mukhabarat…

Also, if you have in mind that the Syria-Israel peace treaty will result in Foreign aid to Syria (and Israel) on the level that Egypt enjoyed after Camp David… I’m afraid you are 30 years too late. THAT was part of a package deal in which the U.S and USSR were both vying for influence in the Middle East- the peace treaty was almost incidential (Israel returning the Sinai was part of the dowry the U.S gave Egypt for switching alleigences). That era is gone- and good riddance!

The thing is, and I mean no hostility by it, is that while I am certain you are not an anti-semite/Jew-hater/Whatever the hyperinflation of “Jewish power” contained in this particular remark is indicative of the pervasiveness of certain anti-semite mythologis in your society. Sorry. We are not supermen or supervillians controlling the fate of the world and world opinion- just ordinary joes trying to get by as best we can.

Regarding security: We are approaching this from different viewpoints.

Your’s is that this is irrelevent in the context of a peace treaty or a matter of national prestige and rights.

My viewpoint?

I call it the SAT viewpoint (Do you have an SAT/psychometric/whatever in Syria?).

What do I mean?

I am sure you read this question before:

if train A is heading south from point “”a”" at speed X and train B is heading north from point “”b”" at speed Y and point C is Z kilometers away from point “a” and Q kilometers away from point “b” which train will reach C first?

The answer has to be that the point “b” (the Syrian DMZ) is sufficiently far from point C (The line of volcanic peaks forming the natural defensive barrier in the Golan) that the IDF WILL reach it first- even if speed X is reduced by hidden mines and anti-tank rocket teams and even if we suffer from a handicap due to the need to mobilize reserves.

Given time and a stable peace these considerations may become irrelevent. But they are THE most relevent issue now.

Water:

Syria has a great deal of water. Israel has much less. Jordan has even less than Israel. So while I am not sure where “fairness” lies in distributing the water of the Jordan Israel (and Jordan) cannot afford to give up any of it’s current water.

We are going to phase out most of our agricultual sector as it is in the next decade.

Borders (you were waiting for this… admit it).

As far as resolution 242 goes there is no contradiction between it (”inadmissibility of acquiring land through war”, “return of territory for peace”) and rejecting Syria’s claim to the DMZ. Indeed, had this resoultion been passed BEFORE the 1967 war it would have clearly referred to SYRIA’s obligation to end it’s claim to the DMZ.

You say the issue is emotional in Syria. Why do you assume it is less so in Israel?

But seriously, WHY is the issue of the 1949 DMZ emotional to Syria? it was never inhabited by Syrian citizens. It was never recognized as Syrian by the world. it was NOT part of Syria when Syria was formed in 1946. And Syria never actually excesised control over it. At best it harrassed (not prevented) israel from excecising control.

To some extent this is a symbolic issue. But if to Syrians the symbol is recovery of all “rights” regardless of Israeli opposition then to Israelis the issue is precisely whether Syria recognizes Israels fundamental right to exist and to have been founded in the first place. For if Syrian claims to the DMZ is the fruit of the poisoned tree (rejection of Israel in 1948) then why should Syrians still desire it while aiming for peace with Israel?

Again my question is WHY Syrians view the DMZ as being their “Right”. If the answer is “because it is Arab/Syrian land!” then the same can be said of the rest of Israel… and then where are OUR rights?

Acces to the Kinneret:

Yasser, when the British-French signed their deal the water and the fisheries of the Kinneret were underexploited. There was a huge surplus and it made no sense NOT to allow Syrian fishermen (who belonged to the same Ottoman Sanjak as Tivberias) NOT to fish.

But that agreement, like all other agreements, became null and void when you declared war in 1948. Restoring it was NOT part of the armistice agreements and thus it has no legal validity. That said I would have no objection if Syrian tourists to Israel fished in the lake as individuals -but only after they enter Israel as such. Certainly we have placed no hindrances on Egyptian and Jordanian tourists visiting Israel- on Ramadan many Jordanians went shopping in jerusalem’s Malha mall.

And I am afraid that on a practical level this is a deal breaker for us as well. given the huge discrepencies in income between Syria and Israel “access to the lake” means an endless stream of illegal workers, drugs and women for the sexslave trade. God knows we have enough of that with Egypt over a massive desert and with lebanon, over minefields and patrols. On the Kinneret? with swimmers, fishing boats and pilgrims all interacting? a bloody criminal nightmare.

P.S. look forward to hearing from you Ibrahim.

Anyway, while I am not a great believer in “creative formulas”- I’m more of a “bottom line” adherent.

But insofar as that goes the best “creative formula” I can offer is the following:

Borders: both Syria and Israel recognize the inadmissibility of acquiring land through war, regret the hostility between them in 1948-2008 (see? I’m optimistic…) and will abide by the pre-1948 international border.**

** If you think it will help then the 1949 DMZ can be designated as an Israeli DMZ (except for border police and law-enforcement)… but only if the other security arrangements I mentioned still stand as written AND the syrian DMZ is proportionately expanded beyond what I outlined to the East.

Kinneret: Israel shall not discriminate between native Israelis and visiting Syrians in accesing the Kinneret (will not charge more for a fishing license- but good luck finding fish!). Israel shall welcome Syrian tourists as Syria welcomes Israeli tourists and shall match it’s border crossing charge to that of Syria (That is our border control will not charge Syrians entering Israel more than Syria will charge Israelis entering Syria).

But insofar as that goes the best “creative formula” I can offer is the following:

Borders: both Syria and Israel recognize the inadmissibility of acquiring land through war, regret the hostility between them in 1948-2008 (see? I’m optimistic…) and will abide by the pre-1948 international border.**

** If you think it will help then the 1949 DMZ can be designated as an Israeli DMZ (except for border police and law-enforcement)… but only if the other security arrangements I mentioned still stand as written AND the syrian DMZ is proportionately expanded beyond what I outlined to the East.

Kinneret: Israel shall not discriminate between native Israelis and visiting Syrians in accesing the Kinneret (will not charge more for a fishing license- but good luck finding fish!). Israel shall welcome Syrian tourists as Syria welcomes Israeli tourists and shall match it’s border crossing charge to that of Syria (That is our border control will not charge Syrians entering Israel more than Syria will charge Israelis entering Syria).

THANK YOU ,you saved my deplomatic career ..
no seriously ,I think this is something that I can live with.
I believe now our task is to draft a declaration of priciples and I’ll post it in this blog.

Reading these posts has been interesting and I’m glad to see we are so close to an Israeli/Syrian peace agreement… now if we could only get the politicians and diplomats on board.

For Yasser, I did want to comment on how Americans view Syrian – or any other Arab state for that matter. What I’m saying is anecdotal (I don’t have poll number or anything), but should give you some idea about how Americans see Arabs. As many posters here have said on other issues, these are not my views and I don’t agree with them, but I am trying to give you an idea about the overall society.

Certainly many Americans have a negative view of Arabs, seeing them as backwards, violent, repressive, and terrorists. (Again not my personal views.) In the current presidential election, there have been ongoing charges that Sen. Obama is an Arab and a Muslim. This isn’t true, but what’s more interesting is that almost nobody has said “It’s not true, but so what if it was?” The underlying subtext becomes one that says an Arab or Muslim cannot be a patriotic American and that there is no way and Arab or Muslim is fit to be president.

The views I’ve outlined above hold true for any Arab country across the Levant and North Africa. For the average American, Saudi Arabia is pretty much the same as Libya or Syria or Tunisia or whatever Arab state. Listening to people talk about energy politics and the need to end U.S. dependence on Middle East oil for instance, you would never guess that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States were U.S. allies. (Never mind that most U.S. oil imports come from Canada.)

During the 2004 presidential election I was teaching a college journalism course and we had a discussion about the Iraq war. On of my students said that we needed to invade Iraq because of 9/11. When I and several other students pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack and that none of the terrorists were from Iraq, she said that didn’t matter. In her world, the people who attacked us were Arabs, and so we needed to attack and kill Arabs. For her, it didn’t matter what country they came from. An Arab is an Arab, I think she said at some point. This young woman wasn’t a very good student or a deep thinker, but unfortunately, I suspect she represents the views of a significant minority of the U.S. population.

Many Americans also don’t differentiate between Iranians and Arabs and I think much of what I’ve written about American views of Arabs would also apply to American views of Iranians, but I’m not Iranian so I can’t say for sure. (Having this odd mixed Lebanese and Jewish (mostly from Syria) background, I think I do have a sense of how both Jews and Arabs are viewed in the U.S.) So I suspect the current conflict with the Iranian government feeds into the average American’s perception of Arabs as well.

Yoni is right when he says Israel has little influence on U.S. views about Syria. Opinions have been created from repeated media images – both in movies and the news – of Arabs as terrorists, and by events like 9/11. It will take a long time to change those views I’m afraid.

Later.

Oops, I’m realy sorry I put an extra “s” in your name Yaser.

On the risk of continuing to sound like an evil Raccoon…

I still can’t see why should we sacrifice anything for a peace agreement with Syria. Syria is known to break all and any agreements. Syria is officially and unofficially committed to the destruction of Israel. Syria is officially and unofficially horribly racist against Jews. Syria seems to have trouble recognizing the basic rights even of Syrians, much less Israelis.

That sounds like a likely partner for an agreement?

It’s kind of like signing a peace treaty with Nazi Germany. And we all know what happened with that.

Moreover, there were no direct Syrian attacks against us for many, many years. Syria is effectively contained.

We could potentially benefit from trade, but, well, Syria is a very poor country that produces practically nothing. And we have enough foreign laborers.

Additionally, we have the moral obligation to make Syria pay for the continued attempt at genocide. Anything else would practically be saying it’s OK to genocide us.

So why on Earth should we make sacrifices for “peace” with Syria?

Oh, and if we’re considering Syria as a key to the rest of the Arab world… it will have all the importance of Somalia as soon as a viable alternative to oil will appear. Should we risk land for a deal that’s good for 20 years tops?

For the chance of existing as a normal people instead as a garrison state? For the hope of furfilling our true destiny in Tikkun Olam, rather than being forced to constantly kill to live?

Yes, right now the Arab world seems to be headed towards Somalia statues… Especially if the current trends of rising commodity prices, globalized markets and draught continue to converge. But maybe we can help change that?

Yes, we CAN survive as an island of stability holding back hordes of starving failed-state barbarians. But would it not be infinitely better to be the Singapore of the Middle East? to be able to travel freely and safely from Morroco to Qatar?

We have accomplished much in isolation. But we

No, I am not a naive dreamer. We should not risk too much in a peace deal or fail to take precautions. Nor should we psychologically disarm ourselves from the conflict mentality before a LONG time has gone by. But the points I outlined with Yasser contain these precautions and if carried out MIGHT catapult us and the Arabs into a Middle Eastern proto-EU. And if it does not?

if train A is leaves point “”a”” at speed X …….

it’s worth a try.

I have written an e-mail to Yaeli so she can help with writting a declaration of priciples ,we have to have a person from each side to have balance .
many thanks Mike for sharing your ideas ,this is really an important topic that needs to be addressed properly to disperse all the misconceptions that are there..

Right, what do you guys need me to do as far as writing up this declaration of principles I’m glad to jump in and help do whatever is needed. This is exciting.

Yoni, glad to hear your Doctorate Dissertation went fine and gladder that it was about something contributing to decreasing human agony and suffering. I share similar values with you: Education, Knowledge, seeking more intelligence and bettering any soul or subject we come in touch with. It might be that I am projecting my values on you but I think we do share similar values. Now about the issue of negotiating Alghajar and Shebaa farms between Israel and Lebanon.
Let me start with describing how Lebanese look at those areas. You will be astonished, or maybe not if you know Lebanese, to know that there is no one patriotic – normal or natural position of Lebanese about that section of Lebanon under Israeli control. For example in Syria you would find one common position among all Syrians regarding Golan, this is not the case in Lebanon.
As everything in Lebanon, various Lebanese have various feelings about the subject. Lebanese look at everything, even human rights issues, out of the sectarian interests and not out of national or humanitarian interests. At the 14 March side you will find ideas ranging from: saying “Shebaa” is not Lebanese, wishing Shebaa did not exist, indifference if it stays Syrian or Israeli, indifference to its status as a national right or national pride etc. The formal position of March 14 group is:
• Seek clearing the issue of “Shebaa” farms through International political channels or through their relationship with the US administration and the Western community.
• The target is not to regain lost rights or keeping national pride intact but rather to withdraw a “card” in Hezbollah’s hand whether to use it in its propaganda or to rationalize its ownership of its arms. They need, also, to display that they care for national pride and rights as much as Hezbollah and that their way is as functional and as effective as Hezbollah’s ways and less costly.
• Some of March 14 Leaders find an opportunity to gain personal popularity among their supporters or populace as well as international window to be known to have central role in seeking solution for Shebaa farms issue.
What about the people’s thoughts about the subject? People do not give shit about Shebaa or Ghajar, only those people directly in touch with the issue care like the inhabitants of Shebaa. I think most of Shebaa is public Lebanese property and not private property so that too is not that critical. May be the most concerned would be some shepherds who need Shebaa as a grazing ground. Common National pride in Lebanon is so weak and rare to find. Not to mention that it has hypocritical aspect to it.
At the Hezbollah’s side the issue is different:
• They used Shebaa to sustain the situation of enmity to Israel and to sustain a certain level of rationalized skirmishes with IDF after its withdrawal from Lebanon. This issue was used along side with Kuntar’s as prisoner. They used both issues for propaganda to gain more popularity locally and regionally. They used both issues as a way of rallying Lebanese around a newly defined national pride. They failed on the Kuntar’s issue with the July 2006 war which showed, despite their claim that they won, how stupid their logic was and how destructive and catastrophic was it to its populace and country. They failed too because they saw things in one eye only; Territorial and national rights were violated by everybody in the world and they only saw the part related to Israel only. Syria violated and violates Lebanese rights on every aspect more severely and more dangerously than Israel but Hezbollah chooses to identify that of Israel only.
• Hezbollah made it clear that the issue of its arms is not related to Shebaa farms. They say the arms are related to the presence of a defense strategy under which the population, especially in south Lebanon, feels they are protected. I tend to agree with them. A government which shows no intentions for protecting its people, who gives its land to Palestinian organizations to stage attacks on Israel, who uses its armed forces to kill its own people, who does not investigate any killing by its armed forces against the populace, who does not hold any person accountable for any death occurring on its land by its forces or by others etc to the end of the list of human rights violations cannot claim its sole right to use legalized violence of the government. Besides, everybody is armed in Lebanon. All sects are armed and have their own stock of arms and their own militias. I do not see Hezbollah’s arms vanishing unless Lebanon becomes a real country for all of its citizens. Lebanon is not a country it is a coalition of sects. I do not see it happening in the near future. Frankly I sense that Hezbollah is nearer to accepting creating a real country of Lebanon than most of the others in Lebanon. Simply because in a real country they have a bigger role. Most of the others are haunted by their size where as Hezbollah has the size of its populace at its side.
• Hezbollah does not have a problem of regaining Shebaa by the Lebanese government. They do not find contradiction with their targets if the Lebanese government regains Shebaa by political methods. On the contrary they will use propaganda that Israel negotiated Shebaa with Lebanese government and delivered it Lebanon out of the pressure that Hezbollah constituted historically and out of the presence of its arms which makes Israel think to remove any motive from Hezbollah hands to resume military operations against IDF.
Regarding Alghjar, it is 2 parts. One is the Syrian-Israeli part and the other is the Lebanese section of the borders where as the Syrian-Arabs during the Israeli presence in south Lebanon went into the Lebanese section of the borders and extended Alghjar village into it. This situation occurs all over the Lebanese-Syrian borders . On some areas many Lebanese are under the Syrian sovereignty or prefer to link their lives with the Syrian institutions like medical care or work. The Arab-Syrians do not want to be part of the Lebanese section of the borders, they prefer the Israeli section and they even sent memo to UN that they want to stay under Israeli presence rather than under the Lebanese sovereignty.

Where is Israel in all of these Lebanese internal affairs concerning Shebaa and Ghajar?
• Shebaa is 2 parts one is Syrian and the other Lebanese. Syria is not facilitating delineating the borders for many reasons. One is related to its claim in the Syrian – Israeli negotiations that it wants Israel to withdraw to 4th June 1967 lines and not to the mandate international borders of “Palestine”, Lebanon and Syria. Once they accept delineating Syrian – Lebanese borders or once a process is started then it might be generalized to the Syrian – Israeli borders. So Syrians will not be expected to facilitate those delineation operations. Second, Shebaa partially has a very strategic position related to Israeli-Arab or Syrian conflict so the Syrians still hope to keep Shebaa under its custody rather than returning it back to Lebanon. In fact the strategic position of Shebaa is far more than the Syrian-Israeli conflict. Syrians occupied Shebaa before 1967 from Lebanon and would like to resume its occupation of it once it is negotiated with Israel.
• Let me assume that Israel would like to hand over the Lebanese Shebaa, irrespective of any considerations, to Lebanon so as to remove any motivation from the hands of Hezbollah to resume skirmishes with Israel in the future. If this is the target then the method is simple. Israel can use United Nations to hand over whatever it considers Lebanese to the United Nations and eventually to the Lebanese army. Israel does not need to negotiate anything with Lebanese government or with Hezbollah.
• If disposing of Lebanese Shebaa is not the sole target then it might be that US and the West are trying to support the Lebanese government or the 14th March people. I think it is a silly target, Israel does not need this, both cannot give anything to Israel and both are not sincere in their relations with Israel. Yes, they look at Israel as the goon that they manipulate to use against Hezbollah and then they go on calling it racist and Zionist enemy. Both are a liability on Israel as allies and not assets. If they want the support of Israel then they have to do their part in this alliance. The minimum they should do is at least stop propaganda against Israel and use their huge propaganda machine to work for peace between Israel and Lebanon or Arabs. They have a big and effective propaganda machine that they can use. It is a lie when they say they can do nothing about the Hate against Israelis or Jews. They have used that propaganda to polish criminals and war criminals to appear as freedom fighters and beacons of democracy. (I laughed my heart out about beacon of democracy; this is the exact word which one US senator, I guess, used to describe one of Lebanese war criminals who tried to kill all he came in contact with, including his people). Yes, the 14th March propaganda machine can pump any wanted facts into the brains of half the Lebanese people. They should use it to work for peace with Israel as an exchange of giving them the “honor” of “liberating” Shebaa. Or at least shut up about being part of demonizing Jews and Israel.
• Whatever you do, leave the Egyptians mediators away from it. Use the Germans and anybody else. Egyptian mediators have contaminated understanding or thoughts or feelings of the relation between Israel and Arabs. Germans stroke a deal between Hezbollah and Israel whereas Egyptians could not do anything related to Hamas – Israeli negotiations.
However, if you leave negotiations about Lebanese Shebaa with me then the issue is completely different. I will approach it from my position as a human being who will use anything to promote peace between the 2 people. I will extend the negotiations, I will make it longer and I will use every minute of it and every file trying to pump compassion, peace and mutual understanding between the 2 people. I know how difficult it is to remove any demonized picture of Israel in the eyes of Lebanese. This I will elaborate on next coming days.

Yaeli,
I am going to write the main points of what we agreed upon here ,I’ll post it in the comment section for any one who wants to give his opinion about it ,meanwhile ;what do you think the new Obama administration will mean for ME peace ?
please share with us your thoughts..

Ibraheem,
Wow, your analysis is so true…
I have to agree with your assessment ,I think such rational approach is the first step to remedy the Lebanese internal standoff as well as the Lebanese-Israeli conflict (if we can call it one)

The Good Neighbours Accord

Preface

The Syrian and Israeli sides(through their respective representatives on this site) have resolved to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict between the two countries and hereby declare their determination to do their best to promote the adoption and pursuit of this declaration of principles as a prelude to a formal peace treaty between Syria and Israel.

Borders:

both Syria and Israel recognize the inadmissibility of acquiring land through war,in accordance with relevant UN Security Counsel resolutions. the two sides regret the hostility between them in 1948-2008 , and will abide by the pre-1948 international border.

Kinneret: Israel shall not discriminate between native Israelis and visiting Syrians in accesing the Kinneret .Israel shall welcome Syrian tourists as Syria welcomes Israeli tourists and shall match it’s border crossing charge to that of Syria .

End of conflict

Upon signing this agreement Syria will issue a quit claims to all other potential issues Vs Israel, and vise versa.

Final status of the Golan

The Golan, while returning to Syrian sovereignty (Payment of Taxes, border control, customs, etc) will retain administrative and legal autonomy. such self administration includes local free UN supervised voting rights for the Circassians, Druze, other Syrian returnees AND remaining Israelis.
The autonomous province shall include Quneitra and the current UN DMZ.In addition, the Druze-Inhabited Syrian portion of the Hermon will be included in the autonomous province, provided inhabitants indicate interest via plebiscite. In the West the border shall be the 1923 international border.
For more details on the legal aspect see Appendix one.

Water:
Current Water allocations between Israel, Jordan and Syria on the Jordan river will remain as they are till a panel of delegates from the three countries agrees on a final arangment.

Security

the 1949 DMZ will be designated as an Israeli DMZ (except for border police and law-enforcement) . the Syrian DMZ will be proportionately expanded to the East.

Other security arrangements are outlined below:
a. The Golan shall be demilitarized of Syrian troops in it’s entirety with the exception of local law enforcement and 100 federal Syrian gendarmanes armed with handguns.
b. israel shall also maintain two observation posts (with unarmed personnel) on the current Israeli-Syrian border. these posts shall be evacuated at the end of a 10- year period and handed over to the U.N.
c. Israel will posses three extraterritorial 1 square kilometer fortified enclaves on top of the roads leading up to the Golan from Israel (About 2 Km’s east of border). Soldiers in these enclaves may not leave them while armed (except on the roads leading to and from Israel). The enclaves shall be evacuated at the end of a 10-year period.
d. Israel shall maintain a manned (but unarmed) observation post on the Hermon for a 20-year period at which point it will be handed to the U.N.
e. Current Israeli fortifications on the Golan, and specifically on the current border, will not be actively maintained but nor will they be dismantled or put to other use for a 15-year period. Enforcement and patrol will lie in the hands of the U.N.*
*This is so if a war still breaks out and a race to the Golan does develop the IDF will have a fortified line to hold and a chance to get their in time in spite of presumed anti-tank rocket teams lying in ambush.
f. East of the Golan to the suburbs of Damascus will be split into three demillitarized zones of decreasing severity:
f.1. will extend for 20 kilometers eastward and be denuded fortifications (including air defense). Military presence will be restricted to two unmechanized Infantry brigades with no artillary or tanks.
f.2. Will retain fortifications and air defenses (and artillary) but not include any Tanks or armoured units.
f.3. To be limited to two armored divisions.

The Palestinean refugees problem

Syria and Israel will signify their acceptance of recompensation-resettlement plan (See Appendix two). Full application will await Arab League and/or PA approval.

Promoting comprehensive solution

The two sides agree to exert every effort possible to reach a final settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on a two states solution ,the Syrian part will pledge to do its best to facilitate the advancement on the Palestinian track as well as the Israeli-Lebanese track.

Regional issues

The two sides recognize the gravity of challenges faced in our region and will do their best to coordinate their positions and cooperate in facing the pressing questions including the quest to make the Middle East an area void of WMD .

Normalization

After the enmity status ends between the two countries. the two side will agree to cease all relations/support to any entity that seek to damage or is hostile to the other side .the Israeli part will facilitate the exchange of expertise and knowledge in all fields, both academical and practical ,there would be a free trade agreement that will encourage the trade between the two countries.
Arab league: Upon signing this agreement, Lebanon and The still hostile mebers of the Arab league will all sign peace treaty and bidirectional “most favored nation” trade pacts with Israel.
U.S and West: All sanctions Vs Syria will be lifted granting resolution of other outstanding issues (Iraqi insurgents…. not that this will be an issue by the time THIS agreement is signed).
of course full deplomatic relations will be established between the two countries signifing the end of the war ststus and the mutual recognition of each side of the other.

Any one has any ideas or if I missed any thing please let me know.

Appendix one:
One country, two systems:
a. Languages:
The official languages of the Golan will be Circassian, Arabic and Hebrew. All roadsigns, local administrative documents, etc, must provide for all three languages.
b. Democracy: All legal long-term residents of the Golan over 18 will be eligible to vote for a provincial assembly responsible for local legistlation, local law-enforcement and courts, tax-collection, zoning regulations, water resource administration, etc.
c. Residency: legal residents will be counted as anyone paying local taxes above XXX (some kind of minimum level indicating actually LIVING in the Golan) for a period of three years.
d. Legal: The current civil-criminal legal framework(Ie; israeli law) used as a template for local law but will be subject to change by the local assembly.
e. Israeli settlements: All Israelis and Druze currently living on the Golan shall be allowed to remain and retain property and CULTIVATED or IMPROVED land provided they acknowledge Syrian soverienty and accept Syrian citizenship. Both groups and their children shall be allowed to retain dual Israeli citizenship.
f. Syrian 1967 refugees:
All Arab, Armenian, Kurd, Circassian etc refugees from 1967 and descendents will be encouraged to return over a 7-year period with Israel, Syria and the U.N providing EQUAL subsidies for their integration into the Golan economy. Subsidies will be evenly divided into individual recompensation for a quit-claim (for those who have made their lives elsewhere and are not interested in returning) and infrastructure/housing construction for returnees. During that period further Immigration or land purchase by non-returnees in the Golan will be prohibited*.
* This is intended to provide an organized framework for a return that will minimize secterian tension and make sure that priority is given to returnees and circassians.
g. Circassians/Druze:
Similliar encouragement will be offered non-native Circassians and Druze from Syria, Jordan and Israel. However, their immigration into the Golan will start 4 years after the agreement. This phase will last a further 7 years.*
*Point is to provide a selective advantage for Circassians and Druze in order to ensure the Golan is a heterogenous region and thus autonomous in spirit as well as law.
h. Land: Unimproved land will be subject to eminent domain and sufficient portions will be alotted for housing/infrastructure for 1967 returnees. Land used for cattle grazing by Israelis will be subject to eminent domain for a period of 7 years (to be recompensated equally by Syria, UN and Israel) provided it is USED for more intensive purposes within 1 year of consifcation. Unused consifcated land will revert to previous owner. Land allocation for returnees will be made under a joint Syrian-Israeli-UN comission with UN representative (who must be approved by both sides each year) providing final vote.
Current nature reserves shall be retained.
i. Entry Exit/customs:
ENTRY through both “Mainland” Syria AND Israel will be without cross border toll, customs or any fee whatsoever. EXIT shall be without custom payments but Each country may impose whatever security measures it sees fit.
j. Future residency.
Golan will be open to immigration from both Israelis and Syrians at the end of a 12 year period (for reabsorbation of 1967 returnees and Druze/Circassian immigrants).

Appendix two
The resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem will be handled based on the following three pillars:
a. 950,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands came to Israel (and France) from all over the Arab League. But 95% of Palestinian refuges ended up in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon, thereby heavily burdening these countries. I believe the rest of the Arab league, which benefited from consifcating the Wealth of their respective Jewish populations, should step up and take a fairer share of the burden.
b. UNWRA effectively subsidises keeping the refugees in their current condition. I would phase that out to be substituted by equivalent or greater incentives to those Palestinians who chose to make new lives as citizens in the Arab League states or in the Palestinian state- with equivalent subsidies to the states that take them in.
c. Providing those Palestinians whose yearning is for a national, as well as private, life a chance to live in a viable Palestinian state.

In practical terms this would mean:

1. Each Arab state pledging to accept a proportion of Palestinian refugees equivalent to it’s proportion of Jewish refugees (eg; Syria, which had 50,000 jewish refuges which is about 5% of the Jewish refugees should accept 5% of currently registered Palestinian refugees. Iraq, with 12% of Jewish refugees should accept 12%). This is the MAXIMUM number of refugees which each state will be willing to accept. In practice, since many refugees are naturalized Jordanians or would prefer to move to a Palestinian state this maximum will not be reached.
2. UNWRA will treble it’s refugee fund for the next 25 years (as a prelude to closing it off afterwards) by offering Cash incentives to each refugee who accepts naturalization in one of the host states accompanied by infrastructure construction for sites of their resettlement.
3. A peace treaty with Israel to form a viable Palestinian state which will enjoy trade and joint industrial areas that will help it absorb those refugees who chose to make a new life there (I suspect as many will leave for greener pastures- especially from Gaza).

Yasser, you asked a question about Mr. Obama and his impact on peace in the Middle East. You instigated a process in my mind about the subject of hope, expectations, projections etc… Let me share some ideas, I might consider them observations, with you:
• There is no pure good or pure evil. When Mr. Bush relieved the Iraqi people from Mr. Saddam he did them a favor. He did Iraq a favor. Now they have the freedom necessary for them to live their lives, make their own mistakes, learn from them and reach a natural position for themselves as people and for their Iraq as a country rather than have an obstacle on them as humans and as Iraqis from developing. Same with Afghanistan. Nobody will remember Mr. Bush as the bold man who liberated millions from murdering regimes. Most of the world will remember Mr. Bush as a stupid person who destroyed his country’s economy and who caused much death and chaos in the Middle East. What if Mr. Bush succeeded in cloning history of what happened in Germany, Korea and Japan in Iraq and Afghanistan??? Mr. Bush is just at the head of an institution or a machine inspiring and affecting the world. He only added boldness to that machine but the machine itself did not function properly to achieve its declared target. Out of lack of proper information or out of lack of dedicated personnel operating that machine, whatever is the reason which is not part of our discussion here.
• Most people cannot see the silver lining in every cloud especially the average people. When Mr. Olmert took a bold decision to go into war with Hezbollah he did Israel a favor. I apologize for simplifying the role of Mr. Olmert in the Israeli political system here. Israel went from a state of decades of indecision, decades of downplaying the strength of its enemies, decades of bending to the bullying of Hezbollah and most probably has a new, will and fresh spirit now. Mr. Olmert is a bolt in the political system running Israel. Many will look at him as the leader who led Israel to lose, that is too much simplification of what really happened.
• Similarly Mr. Obama is a bolt in the system or machine running USA and the world. He has Romantic and idealistic ideas which will try to add more ethics to the process. He is not the whole system or machine. Mr. Bush added boldness where as Mr. Obama will add pragmatism and some ethics to that machine and maybe less rash. However, I stopped believing in fairy tales long time ago. And the same American machine is still running but with different driver.
• Regarding the Syrian – Israeli peace you don’t have to go far away Yasser. Syrians do not have to wait for any new US leader. Peace is very near yet very far. Peace between Israel and Syria is right between the ears of Syrians and in the chest. When Syria decides it wants peace then peace is near and achievable. The only obstacle before is that Syria never sought real peace with Israel. Egypt and Jordan sought it and got it; Syrian never sought it. You cannot make peace with Israel while you run war on it with Syrian proxies, this is impossibility. Why would your enemy give you strategic land while you are fighting it and not displaying any inclinations towards peace? Plus, the peace with Egypt taught Israelis a valuable lesson. What was possible with Egyptians is not possible with Syrians. Only honest and warm peace is possible between Syrian and Israel; Any other form of peace cannot be marketed to the Israeli public and politicians.

“What if Mr. Bush succeeded in cloning history of what happened in Germany, Korea and Japan in Iraq and Afghanistan??? ”

Bush had one insurmountable disadvantage Vs Harry Truman in achieveing this goal. He didn’t have a Stalin to play bad cop.

At the end of the day Germany lept into the arms of the West and accepted it’s values not (mostly) because of gratidude for the Marshall plan or fake “regret” for the Holocaust. They did it because the alternative to being protected by the West was to be swallowed by Stalin and resettled in the Gulags of Siberia and Kazachstan.

The same, to a lesser extent, is true for the Japanese. They (correctly) viewed American occupation as the far lesser of two Evils.

Thus, the U.S in the 1940’s had the advantage of having a VERY bad cop for whom they were not morally responsible or blamed (preventing a backlash) provoking fear and dependency which they soothed through millitary might and economic reconstruction.

Whatever sucess the U.S achieves in Iraq will at the end of the day owe more to Al-Qaeda’s and the Mahdi Army’s excesses and the hatred they evoked in mainstream Sunnis and Shiites than to any positive steps they have taken.

Unfortunately Bush’s ideology (multitudes everywhere will embrace democracy and human rights if just given the chance…) blinded him to the real historical processes he unleashed when he brought the evil but stable order of Saddam down. The trouble was not (just) that his machine did not function properly. The problem was that it was aimed at the wrong target and starved of the initial resources needed to get the job done.

Yasser, the principles are cool with the exception of two small provisions. Will get back to you tomorrow.

WOW guys, the principles you’ve come up with are simply outstanding! I’m going to wait until we’ve got the final version (after Yoni’s work on the two small provisions?) and then I’m going to create a separate and permanent page for this proposal to highlight it and keep it in the public eye. Wow, well done!! I’m so impressed!

Right- two times two equals four so:

Water:
Current Water allocations between Israel, Jordan and Syria on the Jordan river will remain as they are till a panel of delegates from the three countries agrees on a final arangment.

add “all parties agree not to change distribution of water to riparian* states without unaminous agreement of all states”

*Riparian is legalese for downstream- we are riparian to Syria (and Lebanon), Jordan is riparian to us.

Security and DMZ:

the 1949 DMZ will be designated as an Israeli DMZ (except for border police and law-enforcement) . the Syrian DMZ will be proportionately expanded to the East.

No need to explicitly link the two in the document (we’re not concerned with saving face. Just in winning the race to the volcanic cones if the agreement collapses). just change:

“East of the Golan to the suburbs of Damascus will be split into three demillitarized zones of decreasing severity:
f.1. will extend for 20 kilometers eastward and be denuded fortifications (including air defense). Military presence will be restricted to two unmechanized Infantry brigades with no artillary or tanks.

to
f.1. will extend for 22-25 kilometers eastward and be denuded of fortifications (including air defense). Military presence will be restricted to two unmechanized Infantry brigades with no artillary or tanks.

Also, if there is an Israeli DMZ (which delays the crucial and easily blocked leap to the top of the cliffs overlooking the Hula to an extent disproportionate to it’s size) then:

“c. Israel will posses three extraterritorial 1 square kilometer fortified enclaves on top of the roads leading up to the Golan from Israel (About 2 Km’s east of border). Soldiers in these enclaves may not leave them while armed (except on the roads leading to and from Israel). The enclaves shall be evacuated at the end of a 10-year period.”

needs to change to:

“c. Israel will posses three extraterritorial 1 square kilometer fortified enclaves on top of the roads leading up to the Golan from Israel (About 2 Km’s east of border). Soldiers in these enclaves may not leave them while armed (except on the roads leading to and from Israel). The enclaves shall be evacuated at the end of a 20-year period.”

Finally,

Regional issues

The two sides recognize the gravity of challenges faced in our region and will do their best to coordinate their positions and cooperate in presenting further developement of WMD by other states in the region while aiming at a total and mutually supervised* (including suprise inspection and free movement of designated inspection teams) dismantlement starting at 20-years following the achievement of regional peace accords with the Arab league and ending within 30-years. Full Application of this protocol is dependent on the mutual agreement of all members of the Arab league, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan**, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kirgizistan***.

* No, I am NOT trusing the UN to do this. Our inspectors on your turf, yours on ours. The UN can accompany and play babysitter.

** The only thing stopping an Islamic fundamentalist from stealing a Pakistani nuke and blowing up Tel-Aviv is the knowledge we have 200 missiles that can hit everywhere between Karachi and Marakesh- Mecca included.

*** Yes, I realize this may seem unrealistic but I do NOT want a Muslim bomb rattling around ANYWHERE after we give up the Jewish Bomb. I think we are safe from Malysia and Indonesia but that’s as far as I’ll go.

If you are good with these “minor” provisions then it’s a deal as far as I’m concerned.

I am alright with them , but there maybe a problem , you see it seems that if there is no mention of the 1967 line ,it will be hard to sell this for Syrians .
so :1- we can have the border clause written as this:
both Syria and Israel recognize the inadmissibility of acquiring land through war,in accordance with relevant UN Security Counsel resolutions. the two sides regret the hostility between them in 1948-2008 , and will abide by the pre-1967 international line.
this reference to the pre-1967 line doesn’t include the DMZ of 1949.and the difference between the two lines are just ten meters.
or we have to come up with a different phrasing .
I hope by this I didn’t reset all the discussion (fingeres crossed!)
any way the “Deal” with this remark would look like this next comment)

The Good Neighbours Accord

Preface

The Syrian and Israeli sides(through their respective representatives on this site) have resolved to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict between the two countries and hereby declare their determination to do their best to promote the adoption and pursuit of this declaration of principles as a prelude to a formal peace treaty between Syria and Israel.

Borders:

both Syria and Israel recognize the inadmissibility of acquiring land through war,in accordance with relevant UN Security Counsel resolutions. the two sides regret the hostility between them in 1948-2008 ,and will abide by the pre-1967 international line.

Kinneret: Israel shall not discriminate between native Israelis and visiting Syrians in accesing the Kinneret .Israel shall welcome Syrian tourists as Syria welcomes Israeli tourists and shall match it’s border crossing charge to that of Syria .

End of conflict :

Upon signing this agreement Syria will issue a quit claims to all other potential issues Vs Israel, and vise versa.

Final status of the Golan:

The Golan, while returning to Syrian sovereignty (Payment of Taxes, border control, customs, etc) will retain administrative and legal autonomy. such self administration includes local free UN supervised voting rights for the Circassians, Druze, other Syrian returnees AND remaining Israelis.
The autonomous province shall include Quneitra and the current UN DMZ.In addition, the Druze-Inhabited Syrian portion of the Hermon will be included in the autonomous province, provided inhabitants indicate interest via plebiscite. In the West the border shall be the 1923 international border.

For more details on the legal aspect see Appendix one.

Water:

Current Water allocations between Israel, Jordan and Syria on the Jordan river will remain as they are till a panel of delegates from the three countries agrees on a final arangment.all parties agree not to change distribution of water to riparian states without unaminous agreement of all states

Security

the 1949 DMZ will be designated as an Israeli DMZ (except for border police and law-enforcement) .

Other security arrangements are outlined below:
a. The Golan shall be demilitarized of Syrian troops in it’s entirety with the exception of local law enforcement and 100 federal Syrian gendarmanes armed with handguns.
b. israel shall also maintain two observation posts (with unarmed personnel) on the current Israeli-Syrian border. these posts shall be evacuated at the end of a 10- year period and handed over to the U.N.
c. Israel will posses three extraterritorial 1 square kilometer fortified enclaves on top of the roads leading up to the Golan from Israel (About 2 Km’s east of border). Soldiers in these enclaves may not leave them while armed (except on the roads leading to and from Israel). The enclaves shall be evacuated at the end of a 20-year period
d. Israel shall maintain a manned (but unarmed) observation post on the Hermon for a 20-year period at which point it will be handed to the U.N.
e. Current Israeli fortifications on the Golan, and specifically on the current border, will not be actively maintained but nor will they be dismantled or put to other use for a 15-year period. Enforcement and patrol will lie in the hands of the U.N.
f. East of the Golan to the suburbs of Damascus will be split into three demillitarized zones of decreasing severity:
f.1. will extend for 22-25 kilometers eastward and be denuded of fortifications (including air defense). Military presence will be restricted to two unmechanized Infantry brigades with no artillary or tanks.
f.2. Will retain fortifications and air defenses (and artillary) but not include any Tanks or armoured units.
f.3. To be limited to two armored divisions.

The Palestinean refugees problem:

Syria and Israel will signify their acceptance of recompensation-resettlement plan (See Appendix two). Full application will await Arab League and/or PA approval.

Promoting comprehensive solution

The two sides agree to exert every effort possible to reach a final settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on a two states solution ,the Syrian part will pledge to do its best to facilitate the advancement on the Palestinian track as well as the Israeli-Lebanese track.

Regional issues

The two sides recognize the gravity of challenges faced in our region and will do their best to coordinate their positions and cooperate in presenting further developement of WMD by other states in the region while aiming at a total and mutually supervised (including suprise inspection and free movement of designated inspection teams) dismantlement starting at 20-years following the achievement of regional peace accords with the Arab league and ending within 30-years. Full Application of this protocol is dependent on the mutual agreement of all members of the Arab league, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kirgizistan

Normalization

After the enmity status ends between the two countries. the two side will agree to cease all relations/support to any entity that seek to damage or is hostile to the other side .the Israeli part will facilitate the exchange of expertise and knowledge in all fields, both academical and practical ,there would be a free trade agreement that will encourage the trade between the two countries.
Arab league: Upon signing this agreement, Lebanon and The still hostile mebers of the Arab league will all sign peace treaty and bidirectional “most favored nation” trade pacts with Israel.
U.S and West: All sanctions Vs Syria will be lifted granting resolution of other outstanding issues (Iraqi insurgents…. not that this will be an issue by the time THIS agreement is signed).
of course full deplomatic relations will be established between the two countries signifing the end of the war ststus and the mutual recognition of each side of the other.

Appendix one:

One country, two systems:

a. Languages:
The official languages of the Golan will be Circassian, Arabic and Hebrew. All roadsigns, local administrative documents, etc, must provide for all three languages.
b. Democracy: All legal long-term residents of the Golan over 18 will be eligible to vote for a provincial assembly responsible for local legistlation, local law-enforcement and courts, tax-collection, zoning regulations, water resource administration, etc.
c. Residency: legal residents will be counted as anyone paying local taxes above XXX (some kind of minimum level indicating actually LIVING in the Golan) for a period of three years.
d. Legal: The current civil-criminal legal framework(Ie; israeli law) used as a template for local law but will be subject to change by the local assembly.
e. Israeli settlements: All Israelis and Druze currently living on the Golan shall be allowed to remain and retain property and CULTIVATED or IMPROVED land provided they acknowledge Syrian soverienty and accept Syrian citizenship. Both groups and their children shall be allowed to retain dual Israeli citizenship.
f. Syrian 1967 refugees:
All Arab, Armenian, Kurd, Circassian etc refugees from 1967 and descendents will be encouraged to return over a 7-year period with Israel, Syria and the U.N providing EQUAL subsidies for their integration into the Golan economy. Subsidies will be evenly divided into individual recompensation for a quit-claim (for those who have made their lives elsewhere and are not interested in returning) and infrastructure/housing construction for returnees. During that period further Immigration or land purchase by non-returnees in the Golan will be prohibited*.
* This is intended to provide an organized framework for a return that will minimize secterian tension and make sure that priority is given to returnees and circassians.
g. Circassians/Druze:
Similliar encouragement will be offered non-native Circassians and Druze from Syria, Jordan and Israel. However, their immigration into the Golan will start 4 years after the agreement. This phase will last a further 7 years.*
*Point is to provide a selective advantage for Circassians and Druze in order to ensure the Golan is a heterogenous region and thus autonomous in spirit as well as law.
h. Land: Unimproved land will be subject to eminent domain and sufficient portions will be alotted for housing/infrastructure for 1967 returnees. Land used for cattle grazing by Israelis will be subject to eminent domain for a period of 7 years (to be recompensated equally by Syria, UN and Israel) provided it is USED for more intensive purposes within 1 year of consifcation. Unused consifcated land will revert to previous owner. Land allocation for returnees will be made under a joint Syrian-Israeli-UN comission with UN representative (who must be approved by both sides each year) providing final vote.
Current nature reserves shall be retained.
i. Entry Exit/customs:
ENTRY through both “Mainland” Syria AND Israel will be without cross border toll, customs or any fee whatsoever. EXIT shall be without custom payments but Each country may impose whatever security measures it sees fit.
j. Future residency.
Golan will be open to immigration from both Israelis and Syrians at the end of a 12 year period (for reabsorbation of 1967 returnees and Druze/Circassian immigrants).

Appendix two

The resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem will be handled based on the
following three pillars:
a. 950,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands came to Israel (and France) from all over the Arab League. But 95% of Palestinian refuges ended up in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon, thereby heavily burdening these countries. I believe the rest of the Arab league, which benefited from consifcating the Wealth of their respective Jewish populations, should step up and take a fairer share of the burden.
b. UNWRA effectively subsidises keeping the refugees in their current condition. I would phase that out to be substituted by equivalent or greater incentives to those Palestinians who chose to make new lives as citizens in the Arab League states or in the Palestinian state- with equivalent subsidies to the states that take them in.
c. Providing those Palestinians whose yearning is for a national, as well as private, life a chance to live in a viable Palestinian state.

In practical terms this would mean:

1. Each Arab state pledging to accept a proportion of Palestinian refugees equivalent to it’s proportion of Jewish refugees (eg; Syria, which had 50,000 jewish refuges which is about 5% of the Jewish refugees should accept 5% of currently registered Palestinian refugees. Iraq, with 12% of Jewish refugees should accept 12%). This is the MAXIMUM number of refugees which each state will be willing to accept. In practice, since many refugees are naturalized Jordanians or would prefer to move to a Palestinian state this maximum will not be reached.
2. UNWRA will treble it’s refugee fund for the next 25 years (as a prelude to closing it off afterwards) by offering Cash incentives to each refugee who accepts naturalization in one of the host states accompanied by infrastructure construction for sites of their resettlement.
3. A peace treaty with Israel to form a viable Palestinian state which will enjoy trade and joint industrial areas that will help it absorb those refugees who chose to make a new life there (I suspect as many will leave for greener pastures- especially from Gaza).

A few questions:

1) What’s preventing Syrian muhabarat from terrorizing the Golan? An autonomy relies on the good will of its patron state. Syria has repeatedly proved that “good will” is not a notion with which its elites are familiar.

The UN is not a solution – I’ve seen these… men… in “action” in Lebanon, and I wouldn’t trust them to guard an apple core, much less anyone’s freedom. Seriously, they’re as effective a guardians as a 20-years old blind Labrador.

So… this is basically an invitation for creating another Lebanon in the Golan. We all know where that road leads.

2) What’s preventing a new terrorist group, which Syria would be strangely incapable of stopping, from infiltrating the Golan and shelling my parents in Yizrael Valley with Grad missiles? What would prevent Syria from doing anything it wants through terrorist proxies it would deny connections to?

Wouldn’t be the first time, now would it?

3) What’s preventing Syria or any other Arab/Muslim regime from outsourcing their WMDs? If nowadays North Korean technicians are trying to build nuclear installations for Syria, why shouldn’t Syria just move the development to Pyongyang, wait until Israel is fully disarmed and then nuke us to Paradise (along with the Palestinians, but given Syria’s history, I am sure it would have no effect on the decision)?

4) The constant demonization of Israelis and Jews by, well, pretty much all Arab/Muslim states has long surpassed Goebbel’s wildest dreams. How do we make sure it stops?

4.1) Why on Earth would we want to make peace with people who want us dead, who always broke every agreement, who are unrepentant would-be-genociders? Why would we want to make peace with Arabs/Muslims at all knowing the concept of Hudna – nay, having eaten its bloody fruit for years? Why take the risk?

You can ignore 4.1 if it’s unanswerable, it’s just my personal pet peeve

Good questions.

1. As the agreement outlines local law enforcement (including “internal security”) will be in the hands of the autonomous province council which will be selected by free elections. Since the Jewish and current Druze residents of the Golan will remain the majority for a t least a decade the initial character of this council and it’s law-enforcement arms will

So there will be no knock on the door in the middle of the night. What the Mukhabarat MIGHT do is seek to intimidate local leaders through assasination a-la-mode Lebanon. If that happens… Well, I admit I don’t have a ready made answer but I suspect that if such activities turn the Golan into Lebanon we WILL reinvade- and have a sufficient headstart according to the agreement to reestablish the old border (and kick out any returned Syrian civillians).

Obviousl, if this happens the Syrians will know they will NEVER have another chance to recover the Golan- leading to a certain hestiation in using car bombs (which will serve none of their intersts anyway- Israeli Jews will pay many taxes they urgently need. Admittedly our neighbors have not always acted in accordance with rational calculations…)

2. The IDF. If missiles fall on the Hula and the Golan law enforcement (which will include and be run for a long time by Israeli Jews, remember) we reoccupy the Golan. Our starting position is such that we can win the race to the volcanic cones.

Why not write it into the agreement? because it would serve no purpose. If the agreement leads to missile attacks it will be irrelevent anyway.

3. WMDs: A difficult question. As you noted I deffered any disarmament for 20 years. I think that during that time the alliance of convenienece between North Korea and Syria will no longer be relevent. Syria, if the agreement works, will no longer be a pariah (and presumably the Americans lifting sanctions will be linked to cutting ties to North Korea as well as Iran). I suspect North Korea will go the way of China and Vietnam over the next 20 years and liberalize. perhaps China may even encourage reunification as part of a regional power play. this won’t happen if NK remains a rogue WMD producer.

You will note that I also condition disarmament on repricocity from every Muslim state in North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. I don’t think anyone else will take the risk of being partners in being party to a nuclear strike on Israel if all issues are resolved and STAY resolved for 20 years. Too many vested interests, too high a chance for retaliation by the U.S, and too much fear that we will keep a nuke or two squirelled away (yes, we probably will…).

4. Incitement: We can write it into an agreement and condition progress on Golan autonomy to a concrete end to it. But in the end it will either stop as conditions normalize and tensions decrease or it won’t- in which case tensions will ineveitably reerupt and we take back the golan.

Again i believe our starting position is such that our security is not much harmed.

4.1. Feeling shared. The answer is enlightened self-interest: But with proper precautions!

“”you see it seems that if there is no mention of the 1967 line ,it will be hard to sell this for Syrians .
so :1- we can have the border clause written as this:
both Syria and Israel recognize the inadmissibility of acquiring land through war,in accordance with relevant UN Security Counsel resolutions. the two sides regret the hostility between them in 1948-2008 , and will abide by the pre-1967 international line.
this reference to the pre-1967 line doesn’t include the DMZ of 1949.and the difference between the two lines are just ten meters.
or we have to come up with a different phrasing .
I hope by this I didn’t reset all the discussion (fingeres crossed!)”"

ARRGHHH!!!!!!!

I do not want to reset the entire discussion either so I will just outline the bottom line:

a. the 1949 DMZ (what you refer to as the pre-june 1967 border) MUST remain under Israeli civilian sovereignty including border control and law enforcement.

because:
a.1. principle and international law behind Syrian claims to Golan.
a.2. much more difficult to carry out border control west of the cliff line (how do you stop drug smugglers, illegal workers and potential suicide bombersfrom diving into the Kinneret and surfacing on our side?).
a.3. Inhabited and cultivated by many Israeli civilians.
a.4. prevention of future claims.

b. The ONLY concession we can make is agreeing to keep the zone dimillitarized as an equivlanet to the Syrian DMZ EAST of the Golan.

Any formula which cknowledges these principles is workable. Any that does not is not. Yours does not or at least it contains enough ambiguity to allow for future Syrian claims.

I will return to the formula:

both Syria and Israel recognize the inadmissibility of acquiring land through war,in accordance with relevant UN Security Counsel resolution 242. the two sides regret the hostility between them in 1948-2008 , and will abide by the pre-1948 international border while designating the land east of it to the 1967 line of control* as a Dimillitarized zone under Israeli Sovereignty, civillian administration and border control.

* this is arguably east of the 1949 DMZ but to prevent future friction the appendix dealing with the borders will simply draw the DMZ borders in accordance with the 1949 ceasefire agreements.

**Grimace**

Upon reflection I realize Abu saar is right to an extent regarding WMDs. Due to the Asymetry between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world in size and population it is not impossible that some nutty ruler or group may be able to produce a limited WMD supply in spite of inspections and strike Israel while betting that a weakened and disarmed Israel will be incapable of effective retliation.

So we need enough to deter a samll country acting on it’s own without threatening the rest of the Middle East.

So how about this:

We agree to end all enrichment activites and reduce our nuclear stockpile from 200-400 to 10 warheads (enough to deter a rogue nation). These will be kept in a U.N supervised Vault to prevent us using them in a surprise attack but will be avaliable for retaliation if some nutso blows up Tel-Aviv.

Abu Sa’ar,
you don’t get it ,do you??
this is a direct dialogue between people who represent the majority in their countries(meaning the majority who wants to live in peace ) and is in no context an OFFICIAL binding deal ,I am aware of how Syria is percieved in Israel , the blame lies ,well,lets say each side has its responsibilty in this regard to reverse the negative image of the other side .
you seem so convinced in your own mind ,but I’ll tell right here that I have many puzzling questions for Israelis and maybe even harder to answer than the ones you have raised.
that being said I have no problem answering your questions:
on the first one ,I really didn’t get what you mean , seriously what is your perception of the magnificant Mukhabart we have ,care to explain??
and thank you for reminding me to include a provision about the UNDOF, contrary to you ,I believe they have a crucial role to play and after beefing up the force will assume great responsibilty in the Golan.
2.here also I have to respond by asking a question ,What would prevent Syria from supporting a legitimate armed resistance movement from operating in the Golan NOW ,it is our right under international law and NO ONE can deny us that ,if your answer is Israeli deterance then it will be more effective in detering us from what you described as turning a blind eye on “terrorist groups” given that we would be in a legally weak position.
3.will not waste my time answering this . I see this comment as arrogant so I’ll refrain from giving it credit by answering it .
4.this is a legitemate point to raise ,I don’t have an immediate answer ,but I agree with Yoni in his answer ot this point.

Yasser,

Regarding #2 I think you will have a bit of a problem supporting “resistance” in the Golan when the people living there are either Israeli or indifferent/supportive to Israeli rule…. Egypt tried something like that when we held the Sinai and it never amounted to anything.

As for your “right” if you look over the 1973 armistice agreements you will see Syria has an international obligation to prevent attacks from it’s territory. If it does not respect this obligation then why should it respect future obligations?

In the end all the talk about Syria choosing the path of “resistance” is empty air. Syria can go to war, negotiate peace or accept the statues quo. It can also provide indirect support to Hezboallah or Hamas- but we will have to deal with them regardless of Syria.

As far as the UNDOF go their value is that of a “hair trigger” and as a friction reducer.

Syria (or Israel) moving an armored division into a UNDOF patrolled zone is a high visibility and high internationl-impact move. It does not GURANTEE an effective international response but it DOES mean that whoever violates the agreement first will pay a certain price. That means that the intentions of the violator are clearer- one does not create a major international incident unless one is set on war.

Remember, while the 1956-1967 observer force did not stop Nasser from closing the Tiran straits when he felt like it, thier ejection DID provide Israel with the international justification to retake the Sinai- and with the time delay to make up it’s mind.

A more important role, in my opinion, is to accompany Israeli and Syrian personnel as they inspect the observation of the agreement by the other side. If handled properly this can reduce friction between opposing sides.

Yasser,

One last point- The U.N ispectors at the site we bombed last year DID discover enriched Uranium traces. So something WAS going on there and it apparantly DID involve North korea.

So Saar’s misgiving even if inappropriately phrased are legit. However, I believe the articles I outlined nullify this danger.

Yoni -

You know, I almost believe it might be possible to articulate an agreement that would prevent Syria from using it to its genocidal aims.

However, I look for weak links in systems for a living.

Back to my point 1:

Local law enforcement would be ill-equipped to stop terrorists. Were I Syria, I would in such a situation send infiltrators armed with something portable, such as Grad missiles. Put them on a 3 hours timer, aim at Israel, hide them somewhere and drive away. The Golan is mostly unpopulated, the rocky terrain and abundance of vegetation making it perfect for such an operation.

This would create a pretty constant, almost unstoppable rain of rockets on Israel for which Syria could not be blamed. Because Syria will blame it on the Druze, or an unknown faction among Syrian settlers. In such a situation, even a month of intensive false flag operations, bribes and accusations would tear the Golan apart… None of which would be possible to peg on Syria. Soon Syria will talk of defending its citizens in the Golan; blame Israel for not doing enough/fanning flames (after all, it’s mostly Jews policing the place); demand to have more armed Syrians in the Golan – both to help against the terrorists and to help police the place. Hell, they don’t even have to send infiltrators with Grads, it can be kept for a later stage; just Lebanizing the Golan would do the trick.

Then we can no longer do squat about it. Kicking the Syrian citizens out of the Golan would, of course, raise global cries of genocide at the very least. The political fallout would be horrible; during Lebanon War II, there were actual calls in the French Parliament to go to war with Israel. I don’t want to be in a situation where we have to nuke Brussels.

So, we are stuck with a Lebanized Golan. There are more and more Syrians there; less and less Israelis as they leave for Israel. More and more terrorist organizations Syria “can do nothing about”; they can now freely shell all of Northern Israel, poison the water supplies, send terrorists to Israel proper…

If Kitty The Younger can wait a decade (and he’s shown himself to be a fairly patient feline – and he’s young, too), the above can easily be arranged. Just think of the honor derived from such an achievement.

2) Rockets and such on Israel are mostly useful as a propaganda and attrition tool, really. Should Israel retake the Golan, it’ll be a Syrian propaganda victory of Herculean proportions. Should Israel not, it’ll be the War of Attrition all over again. Lose-lose for us.

Yaser – uhm. The same Mukhabarat that makes sure Kitty The Younger gets 97.62% of the vote. The same Mukhabarat that makes sure to write your name down and vanish you if you’re among those who said “no”. Or to keep you under watch (or in prison) until such time as Nancy Pelosi comes over to pet Kitty – then they can be disposed of. Are you living in Syria right now, Yaser? Want me to send you some books by Zionist authors? Or perhaps literature of the Syrian anti-regime exiles?

It seriously doesn’t ring a bell, mate?

And well… how can you write down an agreement if you didn’t consider what happens if it’s broken? That’s pretty basic in this kind of stuff. If you have fears that Israelis might want to give their land to a genocidal enemy as some sort of a nefarious plot, please do share them. I am certain they can be put to rest.

Sorry if I’m somewhat, errr, harsh in my expressions. I am hungry and didn’t smoke my evening J yet. So please forgive this Raccoon if he’s insulted anyone

If Grads fall on israel from the Golan the deal is Kaput. If Israel retook the Golan during such a scenario and rexpelled Syrian citizens as it did so it would lose some PR, yes. But I do not think it would be as much as you think. Even during Lebanon 2006 there was a lot more international understanding to Israel, at least in the beginning than you are describing. Remember a cease fire resolution was only passed after a month precisely because the Hezboallah broke the rules.

And while we would lose PR the Syrians would lose the Golan for GOOD. if we retake the Golan they will NEVER get it back again. I think “kitty junior” will consider this before he goes to war.

The scenario of a lebanized Golan is a more serious one. All I can say is that I don’t think it can happen spontaneously with the population mix that will develop- only if Syria deliberately decides to fan the flames. And I think it would have an economic interest not to. I also think Local law enforcement, legistlature and border control CAN prevent terrorist attacks on Jews- remember this will be a multiminority state where Circassians, Druze, Armenians and jews all have a common interest

But what if it still does?

Ok. I don’t have a 100% answer (which I realize was one of the fallacies of Oslo) but if something like this occurs then the “upside” is that it will invalidate the Idea of Jews and Arabs being to live together as equals even under the most Ideal circumstances. And yes, we do have options if this happens.

If community warfare starts immediately then the still Jewish controlled provincial government can secede from Syria and call on Israel to reincorporate the Golan. If later, we can still intervene.

They are’nt GOOD options but they STILL end with Syria being more fucked up by the fallout than we are.

As to the claim we will not have the political will to act if the agreement fails becuase just signing the agreement will be an act of national self-emasculation which invalidates unilaterall use of force….

Well, you can learn too MUCH from the past as well as too little. If our psychological mindset when we sign the agreement is that of a united nation saying “OK, this is a long shot but we’ll give it a fair shake and be prepared if it does not work” rather than the 1993 “Peace NOW! PEACE at any cost! the Right is Wrong!” than I think we will be equipped to deal with suboptimal situations.

Also, bear in mind that Oslo, for all it’s faults DID play a large role in the 90’s economic expansion, thereby expanding the economic base of our millitary strength. I think a comprehensive deal with Arab league would do much more AND benefit us more than it does Syria (High-tech, high-knowledge economy benefits more from trade than low-tech).

“We agree to end all enrichment activites and reduce our nuclear stockpile from 200-400 to 10 warheads (enough to deter a rogue nation). ”

EHHHHH Yoni, mate, we officially don’t have any nuclear weapons so there is no way we are going to go putting into writing that we will reduce those things we “officially” don’t have…

I have to agree with the Raccoon about the level of support we had in Lebanon Revisited –we had pretty high support for about the first 48 hours, after which it plummeted to somewhere around sub-zero, at least in Europe.

I think that what he is pointing to is that while yes, the treaty and the law may be on our side if rockets start flying across into our communities by “militant groups” that Syria “condemns but can’t control” but in reality we’ll end up with a situation like we have in Sderot. Officially, international law is on our side to bomb Gaza into the twilight zone as a result of the attacks they are making on our civilians but in practice we get international condemnation every time we respond in a minor way against the militants who are going after our civilians.

I think you need to distinguish between the official condemmenations of Israel and the translation to actual pressure to halt millitary activity. Look, basically as far as the europeans are concerned a good Israeli is one who never fires his weapon (that is dead). International opinion is always going to be mobilized against Israeli millitary activity to SOME extent regardless of circumstances.

The question is to what extent and does it cross a critical threshold where we need to choose between being pariahs and being dead? I think in the case of rockets from the Golan AFTER we evacuate it (or rockets from Syria today) that threhold won’t be crossed until we nuke Damascus.

In the case of Lebanon that threshold was not crossed during 31 days of blockade, collateral damage and impotent millitary performance. We had enougth leeway in that war to achieve victory if we had used our assets correctly and been willing to take some international flak.

And while I am just as angry about the irrational international position on Gaza and our semi-capitulation to it there is a difference between destroying millitary and industiral assets of Syria and razing Gazan neighborhoods and their inhabitants (which is basically the only way to end the rocket fire if the ceasefire does not hold). It isn’t that one is more “legal” than the other but the impact on international opinion is different.

As for the officialy not admitting to having nuclear weapons… Well if anyone believes that I have a great card game I would like to teach him.

Yoni, very good points –hey, I wanna see that card game, heh! I don’t think the concerns the Raccoon brought up would preclude signing the agreement or making the agreement or what have you, but they are definitely ones that will be raised by a lot of Israelis. I’m sure there are lots of concerns that would be raised by folks in Syria as well. None of that stops, or should stop, an agreement being forged (look at all the internal uproar within Israel and Egypt when the peace accord and Sinai deal took place).

Again the main difference between Israeli and Syrian concerns is that the Syrians aren’t actually RISKING anything or giving up anything they HAVE.

The objections to a peace deal with Israel and Syria (as was the case between Egypt and Syria) are simply about whether Israel should be allowed to exist within ANY boundaries and (related to this) whether for Syria to recognize Israel would constitute a “Humiliation” of Syria whose identity and pride are bound with “the resistance”.

I am an Israeli and I find it offensive that these arguments hold any sway among the Arabs, let alone that they are actually raised in negotiations. But we live in the real world. The question is not whether we should be offended but whether an agreement offers any hope of changing this reality AND whether it contains sufficient safety margins for if it does not work.

I’ll say straight out that I think that Syria’s current government is unlikely (30% tops) to sign the agreement I outlined. I think that if it does there is a significant chance (40%) that the government will eventually be overthrown by fundamentalists who will disregard the agreement and that if it is not some sort of infringement will occur.

But I think we lose nothing if the Syrians reject this agreement. If they accept it the reasonable chance that it will catalyze a transformation of the region is worth the risk of a future blowout- IF we have the safety margin provided by the security, water and “one country two-systems” articles.

Even if a future blowout DOES occur the decade-15 years until that time will give our economy a chance to develop faster than our neighbors. Also, bear in mind that technological innovation generally favors the side suffering from numerical inferiority.

There’s another point to consider for Israelis…

Giving the Golan to Syrians means breaking Israel apart. It is basically another “land for peace” deal that is quite likely to turn out to be a scam. Your average Israeli knows this. Nobody wants this… adventurism. Why do you think the Left fears a national referendum on the Golan so much?

Because it’ll reveal that your Raccoon here happens to hold centrist opinions to which the vast majority of Israelis adhere nowadays. No peace until Kitty The Younger (or whomever will stab him in the back to take his place, according to Syrian custom) stands before the Knesset and begs forgiveness, offering his hand in friendship. Anything less is a ruse.

We experimented a lot as a people in an attempt to pacify our genocidal enemies. And it seems that the people of Israel finally understood… you CAN make peace with enemies. When they’re bleeding at your feet, begging you to stop beating them. In all other situations, you make peace with friends.

I think that there is an 70-80% chance that a majority of Israelis will vote for a Golan deal TODAY IF:

1. It is for the “one country two systems” deal.
2. Syria changes it’s public demenour towards Israel significantly.
3. The security arrangements I outlined are part of the agreement.

If they don’t then… Well, they don’t. Israel may suffer some international damage on the short run but it’s more likely that the small international pressure in for a Golan deal will give up the lost cause (IF we make movement for seperation from the palestinains. otherwise all bets are off).

Any Golan deal will have to face a referendum. I, even though I think this is a GOOD deal will not beat my breast and demonstarte if it is rejected. It’s not a moral-existential issue. But it will be a serious missed opportunity.

#2 is the most important, I think. Sadat’s visit caused a massive paradigm shift; so did Arafat’s lies.

And yes, it is a comparatively good deal. I think you’re being optimistic about its chances of success or the willingness of Israelis to accept land-for-peace adventures at this juncture, but it certainly looks like the best shot at a peace settlement with Syria.

Agreed. I don’t think we need Assad junior begging for forgiveness in the Knesset is neseccary or desirable… But mutual visits between Livni/whoever and Assad/whoever in Damascus/Jerusalem and the way they are covered in the Syrian official media and civil society will probably determine the outcome of a referendum.

After all if we’re trading the Golan for normalization we should see some indication that Syria views normalization as a DESIRABLE end goal rather than a disgusting “humiliation”, nyet?

Ibraheem,

back to Rajar-Sheba.

I was interested to hear the international border versus 1967 border perspective regarding the Sheba farms dispute. That aspect never occured to me and nor did I see it covered in the Israeli media. Does this mean Syria occupied the farms )or parts of them) during the 1948 war and refused to return them to Lebanon?

Anyway, while the “farms” (which are uncultivated and uninhabited by Jew or Arab) themselves have little value or importance to Israel, Israel has no interest, as such, to hand over the Sheba farms to Lebanon.

Doing so, after the UN has allready marked and verified our withdrawal in 2000 would open various spurious claims elsewhere (Nassralah recently demanded the return of the seven Shiite villages the british mandate recieved in 1923 in return for giving the Golan to the French mandate. And he makes a point of mentioning the Hula Valley (!!!!) now and again).

If we simply withdrew and allowed the UN to move in that would change nothing. Eventually the UN would withdraw and allow the Hezboallah in- a propaganda coup outweighing anything we would gain by removing a rather spurious point of conflict.

However if a deal was mad with the Lebanese government that would simultaneosly resolve Rajar and Sheba that would not eliminate the “no unilateral retreat beyond the 2000 line” AND would slightly improve the security condition on the lebanese border. it does not matter which country the villagers of ghajar choose to belong to- it’s having the border run in the middle of the villiage that is the problem.

I guess the lebanese governement would refuse to discuss this Idea- but would there be any impact on the lebanese Public opinion if the Israeli PM made a public offer for a return of Sheba in return for a plebescite in Rajar?

Yeah I agree completely about the importance of #2 –some nice reciprocal visits, Assad cruising around Jerusalem and Tel Av and so forth saying nice “wow it is so great to be here and looking forward to mutual nice peace relations” kinda things. I’m to the left, though I’ve moved significantly toward the center in the last couple of years, and something along those lines would be necessary for me. The effect of Sadat’s actually coming here can in no way be underestimated. There would not have been a peace deal with Egypt, I don’t think, if that had not happened. And it will take something similar from Syria when push comes to actual referendum (and there will be a referendum) even for the majority of those on the left.

Hello fellows,
so many points to answer ,and hey Abu Sa’ar I’ll get back to you but man this Kitty The Younger made me LMAO.
So I have been thinking this:
how about we actually do what real life negotiation teams do ,that is offer good will gestures ,you ask how we are going to do this ,well I just happened to have the answer for you .
I have been actually reading about the Jewish history in Syria and I must say I was appaled by what I read. I want to apologize for my ignorance and I will try to address this issue by all means I have at my disposal (for example I’ll write a post about this subject in my blog -the least I can do-).
so to reciprocate you can address the issue of the Syrian prisoners in Israeli jails some of whom are in bad health condition. you can contact civil society and your government ,or do anything in your capacity bearing in mind that this is a humanistic issue and this is as part of a symbolic thing to move in the right direction.
what do you think??

Israel attempted to trade the 15 prisoners (who are washed out and mostly not a threat anymore- and their 1984 bomb plot was pretty amatuerish anyway) back to Syria several times in return for the bones of Eli Cohen (an Israeli spy who was captured and tortured to death in the 60’s).

Syria refused.

The prisoners in Israel recieved a fair trial, are given regular medical care and are permitted visits by the red cross, as well as their families, to asses their condtition and treatment. Releasing them is therefore NOT a Humanitarian issue but a legal-political one. However I would have no problem to release them to Syria as a goodwill gesture – IF Syria showed some good will of it’s own by allowing Eli Cohen’s family to bury his remains in Israel.

As for a civil campaign for this deal this was already tried by the family of Eli Cohen who lobbied for the trade. Barak, Sharon and Olmert all cautiously expreesed their approval.

They attempted to involve The Syrian prisoners and their families in this as well but while the prisoners and their families expressed private support for the exchange they refused to make any public statement saying that the decision was up to Damascus alone.

(((((How did the old joke go?

A Soviet and an American argue who lives in a freer country.

The American says: I can go up to the White house and start shouting “President Reagan is a war-mogering Idiot” and do you know what the police would do? absolutely nothing.

The Soviet replies: SO what? I too can go up to the Kremlin and also shout that president Reagan is an Idiot!))))))

So Eli Cohen’s daughter asked sent a tape, through the U.N to Assad with a private appeal to allow the transfer. The appeal was also sent through the pope on his visit to Syria.

Neither of the appeals or any of the half-dozen requests offical Israel has made over the years recieved any reply, official or non-official, direct or through intermediatary. One appeal was made in 2000 through Clinton- it was suggested that the exchange prior to Shepardstown would be an excellent way to show good will and advance Israeli support for territorial concessions.

The reply? Farouk a-Sahara’s nose crinkled in snobbish disdain.

P.S. Didn’t mean to send a negative post- and I AM glad you read a bit about Syrian Jews. It’s a good Idea… But it’s been tried. On our side an exchange has support (I doubt Livni or Bibi would oppose something Sharon approved)- How do we get it one yours?

Uhm. Israel don’t mistreat prisoners, as a policy. Nobody wants to and would create public outcry if happened. As for exchanging them for the remains of Eli Cohen… it’s worth the closure it’ll bring his family. And frankly, I’d rather not pay for the prisoners’ food, clothing, guarding, housing, TV, water, medical care, etc.

A highly relevant article.

So do we have a final version of our proposed accord?

I believe we do:)

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>