Syria to consider phased withdrawal from Golan for phased normalization [Archive]

Doctor Evil

2nd March 2010, 05:49 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1153276.html

Israel withdraws from 1/2 of the Golan..and Israel ends the state of war.

Israel withdraws from 3/4 of the Golan..and Israel gets an interests section in the US Embassy in Damascus.

Israel completeles the withdraway, and Syria sets up an Embassy in Israel.

sounds good to me!!!

Is this supposed to be interesting? I am not sure. It certainly does not touch upon the issues which were stumbling blocks on previous rounds of peace talks between Israel and Syria.

These were:

1. The exact area from which Israel needs to withdraw. There is an argument over a strip of land close to the see of Galilee. (It touched the water in 1948 - but the water level is much lower today.) You can read more about this here. (http://horsesanddefinitions.blogspot.com/2009/12/missed-peace-iii-barak-and-syria.html)

2. Due to the lack of trust between the sides, Israel want to have early warning stations to let them know if Syria is moving troops to area's which are supposed to be demilitarised. The size of the demilitarised area was also not agreed upon.

Anyway, I will support renewed direct talks between Israel and Syria. At the same time I fail to see how the ideas mentioned above bring us closer to a resolution of this conflict.

although, I'm sure the Israeli ski enthusiasts who love to hit the slopes on Mt. Hermon, will reject peace with Syria under any circumstances.

:rolleyes:

Doctor Evil

2nd March 2010, 05:51 PM

being a "Ghetto Jew" is a mental state. it doesn't matter where you live. anyone can have it.

Can you explain why you posted here? Is this supposed to refer to forum members?

If not, do you just want to muddy the water? Do you really suggest that the only reason some people disagree with you is that they have mental issues?

Thunder

2nd March 2010, 05:56 PM

Can you explain why you posted here? Is this supposed to refer to forum members?

If not, do you just want to muddy the water? Do you really suggest that the only reason some people disagree with you is that they have mental issues?

i didn't say "mental issues". i was talking about a sense of perspective and state of mind. I meant no insinuation of mental disorders.

:o

Thunder

2nd March 2010, 05:58 PM

2. Due to the lack of trust between the sides, Israel want to have early warning stations to let them know if Syria is moving troops to area's which are supposed to be demilitarised. The size of the demilitarised area was also not agreed upon.

um.....can't you do the same thing with regularly updated Google Earth pics?

I mean, this is the 21st century.

Doctor Evil

2nd March 2010, 05:59 PM

i didn't say "mental issues". i was talking about a sense of perspective and state of mind. I meant no insinuation of mental disorders.

:o

Nonetheless - this is a very low way to argue a point. In fact, this is a cheap way to avoid arguing a point. Argue the facts, do not suppose you can guess why someone disagree with you.

Doctor Evil

2nd March 2010, 06:02 PM

um.....can't you do the same thing with regularly updated Google Earth pics?

I mean, this is the 21st century.

How regularly these are updated? Every day? Also, all governments seem to prevent google from including high security sites, so it can not be relied upon.

In any case, I have no special skills in this area. I have no way to decide what is needed, or not, for a good early warning system.

Thunder

2nd March 2010, 06:22 PM

Nonetheless - this is a very low way to argue a point. In fact, this is a cheap way to avoid arguing a point. Argue the facts, do not suppose you can guess why someone disagree with you.

i stand by my belief...that some Israelis fear peace more than war. and some of these Israelis feel this way..due to a sense that it is better to live in an isolated, hated, pariah (Ghetto) state, than to become a full part of the family of nations.

like i said...bird in a cage.

Skeptic

2nd March 2010, 06:37 PM

its like the caged bird who prefers the cage..over freedom.

First of all, Parky, how on earth would you know what Israelies want? You've never even been to the place. What on earth makes you think you know the first thing about Israelies, let alone have the ability to "diagnose" what's "wrong" with them?

Second, to the point, remember the Oslo "peace" accords? Then, too, we Israelies were told how it is absolutely necessary to be brave and do this wonderful withdrawal thing, lest we become isolated and hated and lose all our freedom. This was in fact drummed into the Israeli consciousness almost daily by the bien pensants in Ha'aretz and similar publications. Anybody who disagreed was simply a stupid loon who preferred his isolation to Shimon Peres' "New Middle East".

The result? a 10,000%+ rise in terrorism and thousands of Israeli dead from our "peace" partners.

Remember the withdrawal from Gaza? Then, too, same thing happened. Gaza must be given up lest Israel be isolated, lest the occupation ruin our soul, so that hope will be given to the Palestinians, etc., etc.

The result? A fundamentalist Hamastan that randomly bombs Jewish cities and kill anybody who opposes them in general, mostly (so far) the Palestinians "liberated" by them.

So experience shows, if anything, that when someone offers Israel a "new middle east", "freedom", "peace", and avoiding the "ghetto mentality", chances are they are just offering Israel the usual "land for the chance of getting bombed and terrorized" deal.

being a "Ghetto Jew" is a mental state. it doesn't matter where you live. anyone can have it.True, true.

Part of the ghetto mentality is the "don't fight back -- it will make them angry" view -- see the hysterical overreaction to Israel's operation in Gaza or the Dubai assassination.

Another is the "I rather live in a fantasy world where they don't REALLY want to kill us" attitude, seen by the blank refusal to even look at Hamas' or the PLO's charters, or at Fatah's 2009 declaration that, yes, their goal still is the "Staged plan" for Israel's destruction.

A third component of the ghetto mentality is the "if they hate us, it must be something we did" worldview, e.g., the claim that suicide bombings are always a "reaction" to this or that Israeli action.

A fourth is the "Don't make any demands or stand up for your own side! You're just a Jew, after all!" mentality, as the screaming and hollering that Israel dares to even mention Jewish refugees from Arab countries shows, or in general for any display of Israeli policy that isn't one of abject apology.

A fifth is the "who needs a Jewish state, anyway -- we Jews were here long before it and will be after it" attitude.

But I digress. I presume that what you call "ghetto mentality" is my inconceivable inability to trust a thug like Assad to keep his word once he has the Golan and not simply re-start another war. Well, as Israel Zangwill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zangwill) said to a Christian friend who asked him why Jews were so paranoid and suspicious, "it's the result of 2000 years of Christian love".

So, you see, perhaps we don't really trust a country which hosted this guy (http://www.auschwitz.dk/Brunner/new_page_2.htm) or butchered 20,000 of its own citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre) or whose minister of defense wrote a book defending the blood libel (http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/688.htm) and gave medals for bravery to a soldier who claimed to have killed and eaten Israeli soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Tlass) is such a great idea. It would be Syria's minister of defense who would be most responsible to keeping the peace with Israel, wouldn't he?

But I'm sure such folks would be just as respectful to the rights of Muslim-blood-drinking Jews whose cannibalistic eating is medal-worthy as they would be of his own country's citizens... oh wait. Well, more than they'd care for his own country's citizens... no, I mean... ah, the heck with it, I'm sure he'd be as respectful to the rights of Muslim-blood-drinking Jews as they of escaped Nazi war criminals.

What's to doubt?

:con2:

I dunno. Must be my Jewish paranoia. What could I possibly have against these folks?

Thunder

2nd March 2010, 06:39 PM

How regularly these are updated? Every day? .

i was joking. I meant spy satellites. early-warning stations are irrelevant in the 21st century.

the CIA knows what is happening on the ground in every country on Earth, as long as they are in clear view.

Skeptic

2nd March 2010, 06:46 PM

i stand by my belief...that some Israelis fear peace more than war. a.

That might have to do with what the Oslo "peace" accords and the Gaza "disengagement" did. I'd bet you too would fear "peace" after the last two times it was tried the results was thousands of terrorist attacks. Why think the result of "peace" with Assad won't be the same as "peace" with Arafat?

Skeptic

2nd March 2010, 06:49 PM

due to a sense that it is better to live in an isolated, hated, pariah (Ghetto) state, than to become a full part of the family of nations.

(Yawn)

Because nothing says "I want to join the family of nations!" better than "I will give up my most important strategic possession to the empty promises of a dictatorial nutcase!"

Anyway, didn't Israel "join the family of nations" with the Oslo accords? Wasn't it then that it finally gave up its "isolated, hated, pariah (Ghetto) state" status? I distinctly remember many people claiming just that as a reason for Israel to give in to Arafat's demands.

Unfortunately, it turned out that once Arafat re-started his war of annihilation against the Jewish state, that suddenly Israel is a "pariah" again for fighting back. Same thing here -- if Assad wants to make Israel a "pariah" again after a Golan withdrawal, all he would have to do is attack it, Israel will have to fight back, and will be condemned as a "pariah state" causing "war crimes" and "reacting disproportionally".

Israel's "welcoming to the family of nations" is purely conditional. It applies only as long as Israel continued its withdrawals and retreats. The moment Israel even hesitates in retreating any more, or raises some vague concerns about how these retreats are endangering its existence, back to the "hated ghetto pariah state" status it goes.

So what's the point? Since Israel is going to end up as "hated ghetto pariah state" anyway, it might as well do so with the Golan heights and not without them.

The Fool

2nd March 2010, 06:54 PM

(Yawn)

Because nothing says "I want to join the family of nations!" better than "I will give up my most important strategic possession to the empty promises of a dictatorial nutcase!"

basically...syria is committed to the Genocide of all Jews, no point dealing with them in any way.....can you point out how your worldview differs from that?

Thunder

2nd March 2010, 07:47 PM

basically...syria is committed to the Genocide of all Jews,

i know right!!! its in the Koran!!!

:)

WildCat

2nd March 2010, 08:19 PM

um.....can't you do the same thing with regularly updated Google Earth pics?

I mean, this is the 21st century.
:boggled:

Skeptic

3rd March 2010, 11:16 AM

:boggled:

Parky surfed the net for a few minutes. Found out google earth. That's enough to make him an "expert" on why whatever it is that Israel demands is totally unjust and presumptuous and doesn't count.

Bet you that, like most such armchair grand strategists about what Israel or the IDF "really need" and what is just "Israeli hardliners" resistance for no good reason, he can't even tell you what a sergeant's stripes in the IDF look like without googling it.

Thunder

3rd March 2010, 04:45 PM

:boggled:

ich willst geschpielt!!!!!

The Fool

4th March 2010, 06:15 PM

Parky surfed the net for a few minutes. Found out google earth. That's enough to make him an "expert" on why whatever it is that Israel demands is totally unjust and presumptuous and doesn't count.

Bet you that, like most such armchair grand strategists about what Israel or the IDF "really need" and what is just "Israeli hardliners" resistance for no good reason, he can't even tell you what a sergeant's stripes in the IDF look like without googling it.

yep the IDF, and you apparently, have a huge hardon for the Golan.....the world will stop turning if it is not yours??

rant away son, peace may just break out while you are distracted..

Thunder

4th March 2010, 07:27 PM

The Golan is a lovely place. That's why Israelis don't wanna get rid of it.

"Peace? feh!!! who needs peace when we have ski slopes!!!!!'

WildCat

4th March 2010, 09:36 PM

The Golan is a lovely place. That's why Israelis don't wanna get rid of it.

"Peace? feh!!! who needs peace when we have ski slopes!!!!!'
More like "who needs high ground when you have Assad's word?"

Skeptic

4th March 2010, 09:54 PM

The Golan is a lovely place. That's why Israelis don't wanna get rid of it.

"Peace? feh!!! who needs peace when we have ski slopes!!!!!'

No. It's, as Wildcat said, "it's worthless to give up the nation's strategic assets on the say-so of a murderous dictator".

Of course, if you actually ever been to Israel, you'd know that, and not "ski slopes", is the real reason.

Thunder

5th March 2010, 07:00 AM

More like "who needs high ground when you have Assad's word?"

Israel made peace with Jordan and Egypt. why do it if Arabs are soo untrustworthy?

bigjelmapro

5th March 2010, 07:46 AM

Perhaps you need a refresher to dealing with the Al-Assad's?

The high ground is an obvious tactical advantage.

bigjelmapro

5th March 2010, 07:49 AM

i stand by my belief...that some Israelis fear peace more than war. and some of these Israelis feel this way..due to a sense that it is better to live in an isolated, hated, pariah (Ghetto) state, than to become a full part of the family of nations.

like i said...bird in a cage.
Like I said, way back when.....bubble boy? You live on fantasies and enjoy the world of rhetoric rather than addressing issues. This is obvious by counting the number of threads where you avoid delving into details and simply responding to information given when you yourself asked for it. Simple as that. Nothing more to it.

Thunder

5th March 2010, 12:01 PM

Perhaps you need a refresher to dealing with the Al-Assad's?

The high ground is an obvious tactical advantage.

not when you possess upwards of 200 tactical nuclear weapons.

Doctor Evil

5th March 2010, 12:29 PM

not when you possess upwards of 200 tactical nuclear weapons.

Oh, I see. So you suggest that Israel will use nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks. How peaceful.

dudalb

5th March 2010, 12:56 PM

Perhaps you need a refresher to dealing with the Al-Assad's?

The high ground is an obvious tactical advantage.

A.I have been to Isreal and have seen, from afar, the Golan Heights.
B. I was an Artillery Man in the US Army.
C.The Heights are an Artilleryman's dream for Shelling Northeren Israel.

Make it a demilitarized zone with a UN peacekeeping force.

And yeah, Assad is not the most trustworthy individual on a planet.

Skeptic

5th March 2010, 01:05 PM

Israel made peace with Jordan and Egypt. why do it if Arabs are soo untrustworthy?

Who said anything about Arabs in general being untrustworthy? We're talking about Assad being untrustworthy.

Thunder

5th March 2010, 01:30 PM

Oh, I see. So you suggest that Israel will use nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks. How peaceful.

um....what is wrong with israel using tactical nukes against an invading army?

if Syria gets back the Golan..and then sends in 1,000 tanks and 10,000 troops to invade northern Israel, they are free to nuke the Syrian army.

why should I care?

Scootch

5th March 2010, 02:05 PM

um....what is wrong with israel using tactical nukes against an invading army?

if Syria gets back the Golan..and then sends in 1,000 tanks and 10,000 troops to invade northern Israel, they are free to nuke the Syrian army.

why should I care?

How about plan B where Israel keeps the Golan Heights instead of turning the entire region into a nuclear deadzone?

Thunder

5th March 2010, 03:21 PM

how about Israel give up the Golan, and UN peacekeepers patrol the place for 15 years. including an UN early-warning station that is connected to both the IDF and the Syrian military.

sounds good to me.

peace with Syria is the key to peace with Lebanon. the sky is the limit after that.

...but not if you fear peace more than war..and wanna live in a Schtetl/Ghetto state.

Doctor Evil

5th March 2010, 03:50 PM

...but not if you fear peace more than war..and wanna live in a Schtetl/Ghetto state.

This is just stupid.

Skeptic

5th March 2010, 03:51 PM

Parky, in his incredible rush to give up other people's land and security to thuggish dictators and call it "peace", reminds me of the old joke about a conversation between Hitler and Chamberline in Munich, 1938:

--"Mr. Chamberline, I couldn't help but notice you have a very beautiful umbrella. May I have it?"
--"Sorry, that's impossible."
--"But I really want it."
--"No, I can't give it to you."
--"Pleaaaaaaase?"
--"Sorry."
--"I insist! There will be war if you refuse!"
--"So be it. The answer is still 'no'."
--"Why are you so tough all of a sudden? You just gave me the entire state of Czechoslovakia just because I threatened war!"
--"That's true; but, you see, the umbrella is actually mine."

Skeptic

5th March 2010, 03:52 PM

how about Israel give up the Golan, and UN peacekeepers patrol the place for 15 years.

Which is really working out well in Lebanon to stop Hizbullah from rearming.

Skeptic

5th March 2010, 03:56 PM

This is just stupid.

Parky's plan is to shame Israel into leaving the Golan by calling those who oppose it bad names.

Doctor Evil

5th March 2010, 04:03 PM

Parky's plan is to shame Israel into leaving the Golan by calling those who oppose it bad names.

Frankly, I would support a peace deal between Syria and Israel. Such a deal would obviously would involve giving the Golan heights back to Syria.

My problem is with the notion that if only Israel offered the Golan there would be peace, because this is the only obstacle. It is not. For instance, there is the assumption that the interest of Syria as a country is equal to the interest of the Baath party. IMO they would not stay in power for long after a peace deal, and they know it.

The Fool

5th March 2010, 09:20 PM

sigh.....lets clear a couple of things up first.

Firstly I'd like to address the fearmongers, the "Arabs will drive the jews into the sea" brigade

hands up all those who think Syria is any form of significant military threat to Israel with or without the Golan. Hands up please I have a few questions for you....

Skeptic

6th March 2010, 12:55 AM

hands up all those who think Syria is any form of significant military threat to Israel with or without the Golan.

Well, in 1973, if Israel did not have the Golan all of northern Israel would have probably been overrun by Syria and that would have been the end of Israel. Or that, before 1967, the entire Israeli north suffered from constant shelling and bombardment due to Syria's control of the Golan.

But anyway, that's not the point. Israel might survive without the Golan -- although, of course, much weaker and more vulnerable once Assad simply breaks the agreement and starts attacking Israel again from the area it gives him, much like Arafat did. (And weakening Israel is, of course, the real goal of all those so insistent on yet more Israeli withdrawals for worthless promises). But that's hardly a reason to give it up for the worthless promises of the thugs who rule Syria. Just because a scam artist won't actually kill you hardly means it's a good idea to be scammed.

The Fool

6th March 2010, 01:34 AM

Well, in 1973, if Israel did not have the Golan all of northern Israel would have probably been overrun by Syria and that would have been the end of Israel.

Its 2010...I don't agree with your 1973 assessment but what of 2010... Out of say....100 attempts, how many times do you think Syria would defeat Israel, or even cause significant inroads? My assessment is ........... 0.

Or that, before 1967, the entire Israeli north suffered from constant shelling and bombardment due to Syria's control of the Golan.

its 2010...How long would Golan artillery positions shelling Israel last in 2010? My assessment is ....something between 5 and 30 minutes.

But anyway, that's not the point. Israel might survive without the Golan -- although, of course, much weaker and more vulnerable once Assad simply breaks the agreement and starts attacking Israel again from the area it gives him, much like Arafat did. (And weakening Israel is, of course, the real goal of all those so insistent on yet more Israeli withdrawals for worthless promises). But that's hardly a reason to give it up for the worthless promises of the thugs who rule Syria. Just because a scam artist won't actually kill you hardly means it's a good idea to be scammed.
How much weaker? How much more vulnerable?
My assessment is "bugger all"...yours?

So if the "we need it otherwise we will be invaded" fails...whats left as a reason to keep it? That Syria may shell you from there? Why doesn't Syria shell you in the Golan from over the border? Maybe you need further buffer zones to protect the Golan??

How about we discuss the real value of the Golan...starting with its water?

Thunder

6th March 2010, 10:12 AM

Israel has tactical nukes. they could nuke any army that enters the Golan.

or just make the Golan a demilitarized zone, patrolled by the UN. and make a stipulation that any movement of Syrian forces into the Golan would lead to the immediate suspension of diplomatic relations with the USA and the EU nations.

problem solved.

Moss

6th March 2010, 10:49 AM

Making the Golan heights a DMZ sounds actually like a good idea. Leaves only the problem of who is going to enforce it. UN peacekeeping forces are only as good as the nations sending their forces and I think it's pretty hard to find someone none of the sides would accuse to side with one or the other.
Doesn't solve the problem that nobody on the muslim side actually wants Israel to be there though.

Thunder

6th March 2010, 11:32 AM

Skeptic

6th March 2010, 07:48 PM

To say, "what's the problem? If worse comes to worst, use a tactical nuke" is to admit, "if Assad violates the agreement you're defenseless". Yes, that's precisely my point. It's like telling a battered woman to go back to her husband because she can always kill him with a gun if he beats her up again.

Thunder

6th March 2010, 08:14 PM

Skeptic

7th March 2010, 12:16 AM

We've seen this before, by the way. Remember the Oslo accords? Those who said Arafat hasn't changed were told, "if worse comes to worst, you'll kick him out, what's the big deal?". Needless to say, the day after the Israeli withdrawal and establishment of the PA, when terrorism went through the roof, the same people "discovered" that, all of a sudden, kicking Arafat out like they themselves claimed Israel would do is "violating the agreements", "killing the peace process", an "overreaction", "unrealistic", etc., etc., etc.

Same here. The day after Israel withdraws, if Assad violated the agreement, the very same people who now offhandedly suggest Israel could "just" use tactical nukes -- a far, far more radical thing than kicking Arafat out of the territories -- would scream and holler that this is totally out of the question (which, of course, it is, for many reasons), a completely lunatic idea, and that Israel should just bend over and take Syria's bombings of northern Israel again and not "react disproportionally".

Skeptic

7th March 2010, 12:18 AM

How much weaker? How much more vulnerable?
My assessment is "bugger all"...yours?

See what happened before 1967 and in 1973 and get an idea. But hey, how can that compare to some Australian guy breezily claiming Israel would be "bugger all" weaker?

bigjelmapro

7th March 2010, 07:51 AM

like i said, demilitarize the Golan, and make even the slightest violation of this agreement punishable by huge diplomatic consequences.

Egypt has not violated its treaty with Israel. Neither has Jordan. I see no reason to expect Syria to act any differently. we live in a different world...than 37 years ago.
What makes you think Syria is the same as Jordan or Egypt?

Care to give an example where a conventional army has been nuked? This is a stellar example on your lack of understanding on how war works.

Thunder

7th March 2010, 08:36 AM

What makes you think Syria is the same as Jordan or Egypt?
.

the point is..that precedent has been set that Arab countries will abide by their peace agreements. I see no reason to believe Syria would act any differently then their Arab brothers in Jordan or Egypt.

and what is wrong with giving up the Golan to Syria, but threatening to use tactical nukes against any future invading army? sounds like a damn good incentive NOT to attack.

The Fool

7th March 2010, 02:57 PM

See what happened before 1967 and in 1973 and get an idea. But hey, how can that compare to some Australian guy breezily claiming Israel would be "bugger all" weaker?
well son....I can only assume if you want to establish some sort of case that the golan is required for Israel's security that you address its need for Israels security? rather than history lessons..
Notice that you are still trying to slip in your appeal to authority falacy where you actually set yourself up as the authority L0L...

In what way would the loss of Golan "weaken" Israels security. What could Syria do from the golan that Israel could not easily counter?

come on Mr superiour information Israeli guy, The uninformed Australian guy has asked you a simple question. "Out of say....100 attempts, how many times do you think Syria would defeat Israel, or even cause significant inroads? My assessment is ........... 0."

come on Israeli guy....what is the chances of you having your pants pulled down by Syria?

The Fool

7th March 2010, 03:02 PM

Just wanted to add....Parky, the tactical nuke stuff is just plain stupid. It would be like the US claiming it needed to use nukes to defeat Iraq.

Thunder

7th March 2010, 07:15 PM

Just wanted to add....Parky, the tactical nuke stuff is just plain stupid. It would be like the US claiming it needed to use nukes to defeat Iraq.

if I was Syria, and I knew that Israel would use tactical nukes against any invading army...I would think twice about invading Israel.

The Fool

7th March 2010, 07:39 PM

if I was Syria, and I knew that Israel would use tactical nukes against any invading army...I would think twice about invading Israel.
Its my view that the thought of Israel firing nuclear weapons so close to thier own population against a threat the size Syria could manage is just so unlikely it can be dismissed out of hand.

It would be the act of a lunatic.

Skeptic

7th March 2010, 09:43 PM

well son....I can only assume if you want to establish some sort of case that the golan is required for Israel's security that you address its need for Israels security?

Can't you read? The Golan heights are the most important strategic barrier Israel has against Syrian invasion in a war overwhelming Israel (it stopped that, barely, in 1973) and against the Israeli north being shelled daily from the high ground (as happened before 1967).
Not to mention the Syrian attempts to destroy Israel's water supply by diverting the rivers which supply it from the Golan, another trick they've tried before 1967. I'd say such things count as rather important for security. Not having water to drink and being bombed at will sort of makes people insecure, for some reason.

As for the place being "secured" by -- BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- UN troops, the less said about their notoriously inefficient impotence, the better. A couple of terrorist bombings for "occupying Syrian land" and they're outta there, or learn very well not to annoy the Syrians no matter what they do, just like they're doing nothing against Hizbullah now. To be efficient it would have to be USA troops (or those of some other strong western nation), which would mean a constant chorus of (all together now, in a whiny voice): "why should troops protect the evil colonialist imperialist Israel???"

I think you know this quite well, you just pretend not to understand.

bigjelmapro

8th March 2010, 12:29 AM

the point is..that precedent has been set that Arab countries will abide by their peace agreements. I see no reason to believe Syria would act any differently then their Arab brothers in Jordan or Egypt.

Syria doesn't have such a blemish-free relationship with Jordan, ie Syria sent troops into Jordan to support the PLO against Jordanian forces in '70, Syrian government involvement in assassination atttempts and kidnappings of Jordanian government officials, Syrian opposition to Sadat's peace initiatives with Israel of which Jordan supported, etc.

There are clear differences between Jordan and Syria in their approach to stability in the ME. I still don't see a reason for this attempt at equivalence other than your lack of understanding of these obvious differences.

Geographical differences between borders (Syria, Jordan, Egypt) are but other obvious differences...

and what is wrong with giving up the Golan to Syria, but threatening to use tactical nukes against any future invading army? sounds like a damn good incentive NOT to attack.
Didn't stop Syria in '73 when Israel was presumed to have nuclear weapons (albeit, not tactical, as in fitted on the end of a missile). Nuclear deterrent usually works against another nuclear power's possible use of non-conventional methods of attack and doesn't work and hasn't worked against conventional threats. Cite examples otherwise.

The Fool

8th March 2010, 02:11 PM

Can't you read? The Golan heights are the most important strategic barrier Israel has against Syrian invasion in a war overwhelming Israel (it stopped that, barely, in 1973) and against the Israeli north being shelled daily from the high ground (as happened before 1967).
Not to mention the Syrian attempts to destroy Israel's water supply by diverting the rivers which supply it from the Golan, another trick they've tried before 1967. I'd say such things count as rather important for security. Not having water to drink and being bombed at will sort of makes people insecure, for some reason.

As for the place being "secured" by -- BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- UN troops, the less said about their notoriously inefficient impotence, the better. A couple of terrorist bombings for "occupying Syrian land" and they're outta there, or learn very well not to annoy the Syrians no matter what they do, just like they're doing nothing against Hizbullah now. To be efficient it would have to be USA troops (or those of some other strong western nation), which would mean a constant chorus of (all together now, in a whiny voice): "why should troops protect the evil colonialist imperialist Israel???"

I think you know this quite well, you just pretend not to understand.
ok, let me walk you through this step by step....Your repeat the claim about the golan. You claim its a strategic barrier. So without it, Israel would lose? You keep ignoring this simple question because it underlines the weakness of your argumant. Do you believe that Israel would lose to Syria if it did not have the Golan....try to answer rather than ignore the question.

another question you run from is the question of this "daily shelling" you imagine could happen from the Golan. Once again I asks you how long you thing artillery pieces would survive if they fired on Israel. My estimate was something between 5 and 30 minutes. What is yours....again, try your best to answer.

The security issue is bollocks, let me know if you are up to discussing why Israel wants to retain control of the Golan...starting with its water. Who should control water in Syria? Syria or Israel?

please take up the issue of control by UN troops with whoever suggested it.

Thunder

8th March 2010, 02:23 PM

The Fool

8th March 2010, 02:59 PM

Israel has nukes. Lots of nukes. If their state was in danger of being over-run by the Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc...they would use their nukes.

The Arab states know this. This is why there will never be a conventional Arab-Israeli war again.
Also...If the inhabitants of planet Zarg looked like they were going to overrun Israel, They would use thier nuclear weapons...

I find the proposition of Israel being overrun by any on that list as laughable...

do you lie awake at night worrying about a mexican invasion of the US?

Praktik

8th March 2010, 03:28 PM

do you lie awake at night worrying about a mexican invasion of the US?

Many Americans do that very (http://www.americanpatrol.com/ADS/ReconquistaReelectio970719.html) thing... (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/invade.htm)

Thunder

8th March 2010, 03:34 PM

do you lie awake at night worrying about a mexican invasion of the US?

um....this has already happened. Never been to Los Angeles huh?

:p

The Fool

8th March 2010, 04:49 PM

Many Americans do that very (http://www.americanpatrol.com/ADS/ReconquistaReelectio970719.html) thing... (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/usa/invade.htm)and they remind me of the Israelis that are crapping themselves about a possible syrian invasion.

Thunder

8th March 2010, 04:53 PM

you know, Iraq may some day invade Israel. Perhaps Israel should conquer Iraq, just to make sure this never happens.

Skeptic

8th March 2010, 08:57 PM

do you lie awake at night worrying about a mexican invasion of the US?

You bet I would...

...if Mexico was a thuggish dictatorship that supported terrorism worldwide, was in the pocket of an even worst thuggish dictatorship, had invaded the USA repeatedly, constantly declared the USA has to be wiped off the face of the earth, had its defense minister publish books claiming Americans drink the blood of Mexican babies, had its state-run TV run series about "The Protocols of the Elders of New York" about an international American conspiracy to destroy the world, killed 20,000 Mexicans just for opposing its dictatorial government, wants back the very same high ground it used to constantly bomb the USA and was the only thing that stopped them from overrunning the USA in the last war, tried to divert water from the USA when it controlled that high ground with the deliberate intent of destroying the USA's water supply, had...

...well, you get the point. The list can be continued almost ad libitum.

bigjelmapro

9th March 2010, 11:25 AM

Israel has nukes. Lots of nukes. If their state was in danger of being over-run by the Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Jordanians, etc...they would use their nukes.

The Arab states know this. This is why there will never be a conventional Arab-Israeli war again.
Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll restate it: Israel allegedly had nuclear weapons capability shortly following the 1967 war, yet Israel did not use them or threatened to use them in the surprise attack in 1973 by their Arab neighbors.

How do you account for this?

Scootch

9th March 2010, 11:48 AM

you know, Iraq may some day invade Israel. Perhaps Israel should conquer Iraq, just to make sure this never happens.

Nobody is talking about Israel invading Syria so I do not see the significance to this post.

Scootch

9th March 2010, 12:03 PM

Another thing regarding the nuclear option by Parky76, I don't think they would be able to use their nukes because they tip their nuclear weapons in white phosphorus.

The Fool

9th March 2010, 03:41 PM

You bet I would...

...if Mexico was a thuggish dictatorship that supported terrorism worldwide, was in the pocket of an even worst thuggish dictatorship, had invaded the USA repeatedly, constantly declared the USA has to be wiped off the face of the earth, had its defense minister publish books claiming Americans drink the blood of Mexican babies, had its state-run TV run series about "The Protocols of the Elders of New York" about an international American conspiracy to destroy the world, killed 20,000 Mexicans just for opposing its dictatorial government, wants back the very same high ground it used to constantly bomb the USA and was the only thing that stopped them from overrunning the USA in the last war, tried to divert water from the USA when it controlled that high ground with the deliberate intent of destroying the USA's water supply, had...

...well, you get the point. The list can be continued almost ad libitum.

still trying to get you to address what sort of threat you believe Syria is to Israel. seems you would rather type out long winded rants about the protocols of zion as usual.

any chance you may let slip with an answer?

Is Syria a serious military threat to Israel?? Just trying to get you to either drop the security concern excuse for keeping golan....or, if you don't want to drop it to confirm you think the hilarious Syrian military complete with rusty trucks and funny marches is going to defeat Israel...

Moss

9th March 2010, 04:12 PM

Not that I want to imply Syria is going to shell Israel again, but why does it play any role if Israel is able to retaliate? Shelling shouldn't happen in the first place. Period.
A good way to keep both sides from doing something stupid would indeed be a demilitarized zone encompassing territory of both states guarded by a neutral party. Which requires the international community to actually get its behind up and do something instead of bitching and moaning.

parky, I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that anyone including Israel would use nuclear weapons except as a last ditch measure. given the proximity of the states even small nuclear weapons would endanger your own forces and population. They also might damage sites of high historic, religious and cultural value. Which all involved hold in high regard.
That's like shooting yourself in the belly to hit an enemy behind you.

The Fool

9th March 2010, 04:37 PM

WildCat

9th March 2010, 04:46 PM

Is Syria a serious military threat to Israel??
The issue is also Syria's role as a direct supplier as well as an intermediary for Iran to weapons, money, and materiel to Hezbollah, Hamas, as well as other recognized terrorist groups which have collectively killed thousands of Israeli and other civilians throughout the region.

Shouldn't Syria agree to stop arming and supplying groups which attack Israel?

Thunder

9th March 2010, 06:25 PM

Shouldn't Syria agree to stop arming and supplying groups which attack Israel?

yes. Once Israel gives up the Golan, Syria should stop funding and arming Hamas.

The Fool

9th March 2010, 07:30 PM

The issue is also Syria's role as a direct supplier as well as an intermediary for Iran to weapons, money, and materiel to Hezbollah, Hamas, as well as other recognized terrorist groups which have collectively killed thousands of Israeli and other civilians throughout the region.

Shouldn't Syria agree to stop arming and supplying groups which attack Israel?

we are discussing various peoples claims that the Golan is required for Israels security. We may move on to discussing other related issues however I'm not hopefull as getting answers to simple questions from many Israel supporters on this forum is as easy as pulling your own teeth out.

we will probably remain mireds in this current avoidance session for quite some time.

unless you want to show the way?

Is there anything Syria could do...by fair means or foul...to threaten the existance of Israel?

see I want to slowly work through each and every excuse people can think of for Israel to keep the golan...or I want to pull my own teeth out....one or the other.

The first is security and I wanted to hear from anyone who thinks Syria would have any chance of defeating Israel....any chance at all...what do you think?

WildCat

10th March 2010, 05:26 AM

we are discussing various peoples claims that the Golan is required for Israels security. We may move on to discussing other related issues however I'm not hopefull as getting answers to simple questions from many Israel supporters on this forum is as easy as pulling your own teeth out.

we will probably remain mireds in this current avoidance session for quite some time.

unless you want to show the way?

Is there anything Syria could do...by fair means or foul...to threaten the existance of Israel?

see I want to slowly work through each and every excuse people can think of for Israel to keep the golan...or I want to pull my own teeth out....one or the other.

The first is security and I wanted to hear from anyone who thinks Syria would have any chance of defeating Israel....any chance at all...what do you think?
Duck, dodge, weave, bluster, feint... whatever you do, avoid answering why Israel should have any reason to believe Syria wants a peaceful coexistence with Israel. They certainly weren't peaceful towards Israel when they had the Golan, what has changed in the meantime?

Skeptic

10th March 2010, 09:18 AM

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

Moss

10th March 2010, 01:37 PM

lets cut to the chase. Who decides what happens to the water in your model?
If the answer is anything other than "Israel" I think you can count on Israel not going for it.

Same game as with the DMZ: shared control with neutral arbiter.
What exactly is your incentive for Israel relinquishing control? I mean Israel gives control of water to Syria, what will happen? What is the benefit for Israel?

The Fool

10th March 2010, 03:01 PM

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

so we write off the security requirements...nobody has the courage to claim that Syria could defeat Israel with or without the golan.

so whats the next excuse?

Wildcat seems to think that proclaiming syria has "no interest in peace" is enough of an excuse to keep the place. Is that about the limit wildcat? Shall we be courageous and discuss the water or is the slogan "syria has no interest in peace" and pointing out that nobody can disprove this claim going to be the limit of the efforts?

The Fool

10th March 2010, 03:03 PM

Same game as with the DMZ: shared control with neutral arbiter.
What exactly is your incentive for Israel relinquishing control? I mean Israel gives control of water to Syria, what will happen? What is the benefit for Israel?
If Israel gave control of the water resources back to Syria....Israel would have to ask arabs for water. I doubt very much if Israel would ever allow that situation to happen.

Skeptic

10th March 2010, 03:11 PM

still trying to set yourself up as your own personal appeal to authority falacy.

But I am an authority on the Golan and Syria and Israel -- in any case, compared to you. I simply know much, much more about them than you do. You don't know where Haleb is, now do you? Doesn't stop you from playing grand strategist...

I'm sure you know much, much more about Australia and New Zealand than I do. But I don't go around declaring how stupid and evil Australians are for not listening to me about how they just have to give, say, Queensland to New Zealand "for peace". If I did, wouldn't you say I am being silly, and that I just don't know what I'm talking about? Of course you would, and you'd be correct.

Anyway, who dropped the security requirements? Having the Golan is the best security against whatever it is the Syrian dictator tries to do to harm Israel, as experience shows. You disagree, but your disagreement is based solely on not wanting this to be true, not on knowing anything about either Syria, Israel, or the Golan. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The Fool

10th March 2010, 03:28 PM

But I am an authority on the Golan and Syria and Israel -- in any case, compared to you. I simply know much, much more about them than you do. You don't know where Haleb is, now do you? Doesn't stop you from playing grand strategist...

all time classic...
what do you know about Honesty and Integrity????? as pointed out by your next lie filled paragraph.

I'm sure you know much, much more about Australia and New Zealand than I do. But I don't go around declaring how stupid and evil Australians are for not listening to me about how they just have to give, say, Queensland to New Zealand "for peace". If I did, wouldn't you say I am being silly, and that I just don't know what I'm talking about? Of course you would, and you'd be correct.

you are a persistant liar..I have not labeled Israel stupid or evil. This is your fantasy land. Its what proves that Honesty and integrity are not part of your debating skills.

Anyway, who dropped the security requirements? Having the Golan is the best security against whatever it is the Syrian dictator tries to do to harm Israel, as experience shows. You disagree, but your disagreement is based solely on not wanting this to be true, not on knowing anything about either Syria, Israel, or the Golan. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what I'm talking about? You simply repeat a claim...repeating it often enough appears to convince you that it must be true. Do you believe that Syria could cause Israel serious concern with a military invasion? with the golan or without the golan? Your couragae fails you in this question doesn't it.

The golans security advantage to Israel is minor. Any sighting of heavy weapons or troop concentrations there would be eliminated quickly by Israeli airpower.

But its true that you probably have not dropped the claim, just can't articulate it beyond a repetative propaganda chant.

How will possession of the golan allow Syria to defeat or even significantly damage Israel?
aybe wildcat could help you? Give us a scenario where Syria triumphs because of the possession of the golan?

The Fool

10th March 2010, 03:38 PM

But I am an authority on the Golan and Syria and Israel --

sorry...just can't leave this little peach alone.

Can I ask you if you believe yourself to be the greatest Authority on JREF on the topics of Golan and syria and Israel.....the "greatest" authority or just "an authority" maybe you could rank order the membership list....?

Moss

10th March 2010, 06:08 PM

If Israel gave control of the water resources back to Syria....Israel would have to ask arabs for water. I doubt very much if Israel would ever allow that situation to happen.

The interesting question is: If they ask, will they get some?

The Fool

10th March 2010, 07:08 PM

The interesting question is: If they ask, will they get some?
I suppose that would depend on whatever deal they work out. Certainly Israel is highly unlikely to write off the Golan water. Its a big factor....if there are enough people such as "skeptic" that push the Idea that Syrians are just never to be trusted then they guarantee the indefinite continuation of the annexation, which is what I believe their desires are....

WildCat

10th March 2010, 09:53 PM

Same game as with the DMZ: shared control with neutral arbiter.
What exactly is your incentive for Israel relinquishing control? I mean Israel gives control of water to Syria, what will happen? What is the benefit for Israel?
Once they give the Golan back to Syria, then Syria will talk about the possibility of peace... but in the meantime they're going to keep attacking Israel via proxy along with their Iranian allies.

parky thinks this is a sweet deal...

Skeptic

10th March 2010, 09:55 PM

Of course it is. It weakens and hurts Israel. Parky is always in favor of anything that hurts and weakens Israel. When Israelies don't agree they're "against peace".

WildCat

10th March 2010, 09:56 PM

The golans security advantage to Israel is minor. Any sighting of heavy weapons or troop concentrations there would be eliminated quickly by Israeli airpower.
Ah, that miraculous Israeli air power... is there anything it can't do? :rolleyes:

Skeptic

10th March 2010, 10:04 PM

bigjelmapro

11th March 2010, 03:59 AM

The interesting question is: If they ask, will they get some?
Have we missed the dire problems Syria is having with their water resources? Syria has suffered from horrid water management for over 2 decades now. Why would Israel need to be at a disadvantage with a country that has and will continue to fail in their management of water resources?

Moss

11th March 2010, 11:12 AM

Have we missed the dire problems Syria is having with their water resources? Syria has suffered from horrid water management for over 2 decades now. Why would Israel need to be at a disadvantage with a country that has and will continue to fail in their management of water resources?

Sounds like an opportunity for technology and knowledge transfer plus cooperation that might benefit both states actually.

The Fool

11th March 2010, 03:03 PM

Ah, that miraculous Israeli air power... is there anything it can't do? :rolleyes:
until you can scrape together some courage and tell us if you think Syria would have any chance whatsoever of defeating Israel its rather pointless trying to discuss the issue of Israels security.

The Fool

11th March 2010, 03:07 PM

TF's method of argument reminds me of Steve Martin's "how to be a millionaire" sketch: "First, get a million dollars. Then..."

In this case, it's "how to prove the Golan's not important to Israel": "First, declare the Golan is not a important to Israel is the correct conclusion. Then..."

well, if you guys would ever grow a spine and actually state if you believe Syria would have any chance of successfully invading Israel with or without the golan then discussing Israels need for the golan to prevent an invasion is rather pointless.

let me know if ever you are overtaken by a wave of courage and want to answer.

a_unique_person

11th March 2010, 03:17 PM

Scootch

11th March 2010, 03:29 PM

I do not think that Syria could successfull defeat Israel today, but what about 20 years from now? Will Syria always be weaker than Israel for all times? And why should Israel trust Syria, what has Syria done to earn the trust of Israel. And if you do not like that question then reverse it, what has Israel done to earn the trust of Syria.
And, if one day, Syria does have the military might to defeat Israel, do you think they would? I am not asking for predictions of the future but what do you think, based on what you know now, would Syria do if they had an equal military to Israel.
PS-I do not mean these questions to be gotcha questions, they are opinion questions so there is no "wrong" answer (but on the opposite side of that there is no "right" answer either)

The Fool

11th March 2010, 03:30 PM

That line of logic doesn't really work. All a country has to do is declare some land important, then it has the right to take ownership of it.

The problem I am having is that those that seem to want to retain the "security" reason for keeping the golan can't seem to bring themselves to say that they believe Syria could be a realistic threat to Israel....

This makes it rather difficult to move on to explore the other and likely more realistic reasons for Israel not wanting to relinguish control of the Golan (water).

I not with interest that "skeptic" has been suspended under the 1,376th final warning rule.

WildCat

11th March 2010, 04:42 PM

until you can scrape together some courage and tell us if you think Syria would have any chance whatsoever of defeating Israel its rather pointless trying to discuss the issue of Israels security.
They could certainly kill a lot of Israelis in a short amount of time.

As far as giving up the Golan, what's in it for Israel?

The Fool

11th March 2010, 05:25 PM

They could certainly kill a lot of Israelis in a short amount of time.

As far as giving up the Golan, what's in it for Israel?
nothing in it for Israel except possibly peace with a neighbour and an acceptance of the fact that it is no longer considered ok to keep a bit of someone elses country after a war..

let me know if you ever get a surge of courage and can answer the question on how much of a genuine security concern Syria is...

WildCat

11th March 2010, 06:29 PM

nothing in it for Israel except possibly peace with a neighbour and an acceptance of the fact that it is no longer considered ok to keep a bit of someone elses country after a war..
Ah, so Israel gives up all its leverage, and then enters into peace negotiations with a country that is currently attacking it via proxies?

Used car salesmen must love it when you walk into the lot.

let me know if you ever get a surge of courage and can answer the question on how much of a genuine security concern Syria is...
Already answered, though it's rather pointless discussing this issue with someone who thinks the IAF can take out hundreds of artillery pieces in the blink of an eye as you apparently believe.

Thunder

11th March 2010, 06:59 PM

Ah, so Israel gives up all its leverage, and then enters into peace negotiations with a country that is currently attacking it via proxies? .

at least Syria uses proxies. Israel attacked Syria several months ago...remember?

WildCat

11th March 2010, 06:59 PM

at least Syria uses proxies. Israel attacked Syria several months ago...remember?
Oh, you mean the little nuke facility the N. Koreans built for them? :rolleyes:

The Fool

11th March 2010, 07:32 PM

Already answered,
nope...no answer.

the question was about syrias likely success in a war with Israel and if the golan would make a difference. I believe that Syria would comprehensively and quickly lose any war with Israel, golan or not.

you, however, can't answer this question and prefer to reply with handwaving distractions like "They could certainly kill a lot of Israelis in a short amount of time". which is certainly not answering the question......I believe you can't answer it because it would point out your unwillingness to drop excuses for retaining the golan....even excuses that have no basis in fact.

My belief is that likud wants to keep it therefore you agree....

.

The Fool

11th March 2010, 07:38 PM

...........it's rather pointless discussing this issue with someone who thinks the IAF can take out hundreds of artillery pieces in the blink of an eye as you apparently believe.

laugh out loud......

bet you can't type the following.

"I believe that If Syria started firing shells from the golan, the IDF could not stop it"

come on...be brave.

one thing that does amaze me is how you Israel bots are such defeatists....skeptic lives in constant fear of all israelis being "butchered to the last baby" you wet yourself worrying about Syrian invasions....

what a pile of jellybacks :)

bigjelmapro

12th March 2010, 02:09 AM

Sounds like an opportunity for technology and knowledge transfer plus cooperation that might benefit both states actually.
An opportunity already employed between Israel and Jordan. Syria opted out since this would mean recognition of Israel. There are clear benefits even if the countries involved in this cooperation do not necessarily agree with eachother in every sense.

Thunder

13th March 2010, 09:15 AM

Israel never misses an opportunity....to miss an opportunity. Israel's fear of peace with its neighbors is clearly of a pathological nature.

Giz

13th March 2010, 09:57 AM

Israel never misses an opportunity....to miss an opportunity. Israel's fear of peace with its neighbors is clearly of a pathological nature.

This is so true. What reasonable people would let themselves be spooked by multiple invasions, constant terror activity, genocidal rhetoric and attempts to acquire nuclear weapons?

You know Parky, it isn't paranoia when they really are out to get you...

WildCat

13th March 2010, 10:13 AM

:words:

:words:
What's in it for Israel The Fool?

Thunder

13th March 2010, 12:43 PM

This is so true. What reasonable people would let themselves be spooked by multiple invasions, constant terror activity, genocidal rhetoric and attempts to acquire nuclear weapons?

You know Parky, it isn't paranoia when they really are out to get you...

Egypt invaded Israel 3 times....and yet Israel made peace with them.

Jordan invaded Israel twice..and Israel made peace with them.

is their something special about Syria we don't know about?

Syrian Arabs can't be trusted, but Jordanian and Egyptian ones can?

by giving up the Golan, Israel could have peace with Syria, Lebanon, and end Syrian support for Hamas. isn't that worth giving up the lovely Golan Heights?

as of this moment, Israel seems to care more about land than peace.

The Fool

13th March 2010, 03:46 PM

What's in it for Israel The Fool?
something so strange that you can't even comprehend it. Something Israel gained when it came up with a deal with the Egyptians, something it gained when it came up with a deal with Jordan...something strange and alien to your way of thinking.. But I agree with you....there is nothing that you value in it for Israel.

Anyway, you can go back to telling scary stories about the Syrian Military.....

Actually, it may be a good Idea for you to do a little bit of research on the advantages of a peace treaty with syria. You just never know, Netanyahu may decide that you like the Idea some time in the future.

WildCat

14th March 2010, 10:42 AM

something so strange that you can't even comprehend it. Something Israel gained when it came up with a deal with the Egyptians, something it gained when it came up with a deal with Jordan...something strange and alien to your way of thinking.. But I agree with you....there is nothing that you value in it for Israel.

Anyway, you can go back to telling scary stories about the Syrian Military.....

Actually, it may be a good Idea for you to do a little bit of research on the advantages of a peace treaty with syria. You just never know, Netanyahu may decide that you like the Idea some time in the future.
This wasn't about a peace treaty with Syria, it was about giving back the Golan.

What's in it for Israel?

Thunder

14th March 2010, 02:31 PM

This wasn't about a peace treaty with Syria, it was about giving back the Golan.

What's in it for Israel?

diplomatic and economic relations with Syria.

diplomatic and economic relations with Lebanon.

and end to Syrian financial and political and material support to Hamas.

imagine the markets that would open up, by making peace with Lebanon and Syria. it would be huge!!!!

Israel has tons to gain by making peace with Syria and Lebanon. Much more than they have to lose. at least, a rational person would see this.

The Fool

14th March 2010, 04:11 PM

This wasn't about a peace treaty with Syria, it was about giving back the Golan.

What's in it for Israel?I've said before there is absolutely nothing in it for Israel that you could comprehend. You will need to wait for likud to tell you what you think Israel should do...

WildCat

14th March 2010, 08:08 PM

diplomatic and economic relations with Syria.

diplomatic and economic relations with Lebanon.

and end to Syrian financial and political and material support to Hamas.

imagine the markets that would open up, by making peace with Lebanon and Syria. it would be huge!!!!

Israel has tons to gain by making peace with Syria and Lebanon. Much more than they have to lose. at least, a rational person would see this.
When did Syria say that in return for the Golan they'd have a real peace with Israel? According to the article returning the Golan was a condition for peace talks, not peace.

Thunder

14th March 2010, 08:15 PM

When did Syria say that in return for the Golan they'd have a real peace with Israel? According to the article returning the Golan was a condition for peace talks, not peace.

well...that shows u didnt read the article.

surprise...surprise.

WildCat

14th March 2010, 08:21 PM

well...that shows u didnt read the article.

surprise...surprise.
I read it, and unlike you I actually comprehended it.
"There could be stages of withdrawal, the timing of which could involve a form of normalization," he reportedly said. "Half of the Golan could lead to an end to enmity; three quarters of the Golan, to a special interest section in the U.S. embassy in Damascus: a full withdrawal would allow a Syrian embassy in Israel."
See that word I bolded?

If I flip a coin, it could come up heads...

Thunder

14th March 2010, 08:26 PM

"a full withdrawal would allow a Syrian embassy in Israel."

sounds pretty clear to me. but for someone who is suspicious of the intentions of all Arabs on Earth, I would too wonder.

anyway, all BS aside, its seems clear to me (and all those who do not fear peace), that Syria is suggesting full peace..for a full withdrawal.

bigjelmapro

15th March 2010, 01:08 AM

Yes, a building in Syria. Diplomatic status does not imply peace. How this implies peace to you is nothing more than wishful thinking.

WildCat

15th March 2010, 05:38 AM

The Fool

15th March 2010, 05:52 AM

Yes, a building in Syria. Diplomatic status does not imply peace. How this implies peace to you is nothing more than wishful thinking.

wow...an embassy doesn't imply peace?

WildCat

15th March 2010, 06:02 AM

wow...an embassy doesn't imply peace?
Did Germany and the USSR have embassies in Poland in 1939?

Thunder

15th March 2010, 07:19 AM

Did Germany and the USSR have embassies in Poland in 1939?

Syria/Lebanon= Nazi Germany/USSSR?????

talk about being melodramatic.

i am still curious as to why Egypt and Jordan can be trusted, but not Lebanon and Syria.

Scootch

15th March 2010, 08:10 AM

Syria/Lebanon= Nazi Germany/USSSR?????

talk about being melodramatic.

i am still curious as to why Egypt and Jordan can be trusted, but not Lebanon and Syria.

Well not everyone in that region is exactly the same. Egypt and Jordan are not the same thing as Syria and Lebanon.
Just of the top of my head I can think of several reasons why they can not be trusted. The governments of Syria and Lebanon are so weak they have no control over their own countries. With Lebanon Hezbollah was lobbing rockets and Lebanon could not stop them. And I do not know this for a fact but Syria may not be able to control their own territories so terrorists could still lob shells from Golan into Israel (UN could do nothing in Lebanon-probably would not be able to do anything in Golan)
Another thing is it took a brave man like Sadat to broker the peace between Israel and Egypt, does Syria have anyone close to that?
And going back to my last post in this thread. Do you trust Syria to maintain peace? Also Syria today may not be able to wage war with Israel, but if that would ever change do you believe they would not attack?

bigjelmapro

15th March 2010, 08:50 AM

Did Germany and the USSR have embassies in Poland in 1939?
They'll still fail to see the relevance of this.

bigjelmapro

15th March 2010, 08:56 AM

With Lebanon Hezbollah was lobbing rockets and Lebanon could not stop them.

Correction, many elements, including within the Lebanese army, provided logistical support to Hezbollah and are often supportive of their actions, the last war, not being an exception.

And I do not know this for a fact but Syria may not be able to control their own territories so terrorists could still lob shells from Golan into Israel (UN could do nothing in Lebanon-probably would not be able to do anything in Golan)
...

Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. all have offices in Beirut and Damascus. Syria provides financial backing and is an intermediary between Iran and Lebanon in supplying Hezbollah in Lebanon with weapons. All fully re-stocked (and more than before 2006) with tens of thousands of short, medium and long range ballistic missiles.

Moss

15th March 2010, 10:21 AM

My admittedly somewhat naive impression of Egypt is that it has a secular militarybased government that routinely kicks the islamists in their country in the hoops because they endanger the valuable tourism and to keep themselves in power. Syria doesn't exactly look like that. (Which I find a bit sad, it's not like Syria has no archeological and historic sites they could market...)
I'm also not sure what the Lebanes population would say to peace with Israel. Not getting another armoured visit by Israel might be a good idea, but I'm not exactly sure if they have forgotten that last invasion. Would also depend of who just managed to be up top.

Thunder

15th March 2010, 11:31 AM

I have changed my mind. Israel should reject any and all peace offers. That way they will grow more isolated..and eventually be forced into making peace under condition they hate.

Scootch

15th March 2010, 12:20 PM

I have changed my mind. Israel should reject any and all peace offers. That way they will grow more isolated..and eventually be forced into making peace under condition they hate.

The only difference between this post and the treaty being offered by Syria now is Israel is not forced to sign it.
But I have changed my mind too. I think Israel should just accept anything Syria offers unconditionally and if, by some unusual set of circumstances, Syria reneges, then Israel should just nuke them out of exisistance. That will lead to the true path to peace in the middle east.
(That is me being sarcastic if you could not tell)

Thunder

15th March 2010, 12:28 PM

no. im actually serious.

Israel should reject all peace initiatives from Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians, and rhe rest of the Muslim world. they should live in further isolation and mistrust.

eventually, Israel will be forced to either leave most/all of the West Bank...or become a true Apartheid state, by ruling the Palestinians with no political rights.

naa. maybe Israel will let an Arab vote equal 3/5ths of a Jewish vote.

bigjelmapro

15th March 2010, 01:59 PM

Good you've changed your mind since obviously there isn't a way you can realistically defend this position of yours :)

Thunder

15th March 2010, 02:28 PM

Good you've changed your mind since obviously there isn't a way you can realistically defend this position of yours :)

you are right. Arabs simply cannot be trusted. Especially if they are Muslim. They are all scum. Filthy....Goy scum.

Palaestina Victa....Palaestina Capta!!!

gnome

15th March 2010, 03:37 PM

nope...no answer.

the question was about syrias likely success in a war with Israel and if the golan would make a difference. I believe that Syria would comprehensively and quickly lose any war with Israel, golan or not.

you, however, can't answer this question and prefer to reply with handwaving distractions like "They could certainly kill a lot of Israelis in a short amount of time". which is certainly not answering the question......I believe you can't answer it because it would point out your unwillingness to drop excuses for retaining the golan....even excuses that have no basis in fact.

My belief is that likud wants to keep it therefore you agree....

.

Maybe I could try to break this deadlock...

Wildcat could have full faith in the IDF's ability to prevail in a fight with the Syrian military. However, he could believe that in a worst case scenario giving up control of the Golan Heights may bring the cost of that victory unacceptably higher in time, money, and lives.

I think that's a legitimate concern.

Israel couldn't reasonably respond with nuclear attack--at best they would be cut off from other countries, including the US withdrawing all support. At worst they may find themselves at the center of an international nuclear crisis if a nation with a shaky relationship with the US, such as Russia, reacts too strongly and the US lines up to defend Israel. I just don't see a good outcome from that--and frankly I think it's a good idea that a nuclear response to conventional threat is "taboo".

Israel's nukes could only be reasonably considered a last resort threat, if their conventional defense failed and they were about to be overrun. In that case they would have little to lose.

A demilitarized Golan Heights might be something that works, if the enforcement is robust enough. But I'm not a fan of Israel giving up strategic concessions for symbolic progress in a peace with Syria. Though I do support pursuit of actual progress. Diplomatic solutions should always be sought right up until the moment they have no choice but to use force, should that come to pass.

Thunder

15th March 2010, 03:54 PM

I see no reason to believe that the folks who don't want to give up the Golan, have this belief for anything other than simply irredentist reasons. They love the Golan..and they don't wanna give it back. Its that simple.

The IDF could and would annihilate ANY invading army from Syria or Lebanon. Israel knows that..and their Arab neighbors know that.

That's why there has been no invasion of Israeli territory since 1973. The military edge supplied by the USA is unstoppable.

ddt

15th March 2010, 04:27 PM

A demilitarized Golan Heights might be something that works, if the enforcement is robust enough. But I'm not a fan of Israel giving up strategic concessions for symbolic progress in a peace with Syria. Though I do support pursuit of actual progress. Diplomatic solutions should always be sought right up until the moment they have no choice but to use force, should that come to pass.

I was under the impression that the topic of discussion was, in effect, an exchange of the Golan (and then demilitarized) for peace. From the Haaretz article in the OP:
Syria is willing to consider peace and gradual normalization with Israel, according to Gabrielle Rifkind of the Oxford Research Group, who met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem in December. Speaking with Haaretz over e-mail, the conflict resolution specialist said that following an Israeli withdrawal from half the territory it holds on the Golan Heights, the two states would declare an end to the state of enmity between them as a first step.
The article is a bit circumlocutious about the actual terms, but I agree that the end terms should be such an exchange.

Anyway, such a proposal has been on the table a couple of times in the last decade - though never official, but brokered by non-officials with close ties to the government, and every time it failed to progress, so I'm not holding my breath.

The Fool

15th March 2010, 04:36 PM

Did Germany and the USSR have embassies in Poland in 1939?
a silly question.

an operating embassy very much implies peace, no matter how much you spin. When the war broke out in 39 do you imagine the embassies continued to function??

please tell me about a nation that kept an embassy open in a nation it was at war with....just one example will do.

Israel is not going to give up control of Golan water....you need to help them with the handwaving required to pretend there are other rational reasons.

WildCat

15th March 2010, 04:50 PM

Syria/Lebanon= Nazi Germany/USSSR?????

talk about being melodramatic.

i am still curious as to why Egypt and Jordan can be trusted, but not Lebanon and Syria.
Talk about missing the point... :rolleyes:

The Fool claims that merely having an embassy ensures peace. He's wrong.

WildCat

15th March 2010, 04:59 PM

I was under the impression that the topic of discussion was, in effect, an exchange of the Golan (and then demilitarized) for peace. From the Haaretz article in the OP:

The article is a bit circumlocutious about the actual terms, but I agree that the end terms should be such an exchange.

Anyway, such a proposal has been on the table a couple of times in the last decade - though never official, but brokered by non-officials with close ties to the government, and every time it failed to progress, so I'm not holding my breath.
Read it again. Your quote says that Syria would consider peace.

WildCat

15th March 2010, 05:00 PM

a silly question.

an operating embassy very much implies peace, no matter how much you spin. When the war broke out in 39 do you imagine the embassies continued to function??

please tell me about a nation that kept an embassy open in a nation it was at war with....just one example will do.

Israel is not going to give up control of Golan water....you need to help them with the handwaving required to pretend there are other rational reasons.
So an embassy is meaningless wrt ensuring peace, glad you admit that.

Thunder

15th March 2010, 05:34 PM

so just because Syria opens an embassy in Israel, and allows an Israeli embassy in Damascus, and established business relations and economic cooperation, and has millions of dollars in trade...

..doesnt mean Syria is serious about peace.

:)

translation? if the Syrians really want peace..they will convert to Judaism.

ddt

15th March 2010, 05:47 PM

Read it again. Your quote says that Syria would consider peace.

Yes, I read it. It also says a first step would be that Israel withdraws from half the Golan and the states declare an end to their emnity. That's not a peace treaty but goes a long way. The article throws around some suggestions without proposing a definite plan.

WildCat

15th March 2010, 06:27 PM

Yes, I read it. It also says a first step would be that Israel withdraws from half the Golan and the states declare an end to their emnity.
No, it says "Half of the Golan could lead to an end to enmity".

Not will, could. Israel gives up half the land, and then Syria gets to decide if that's enough to end "enmity".

Thunder

15th March 2010, 06:51 PM

No, it says "Half of the Golan could lead to an end to enmity".

so....that's you problem with peace between Syria and Israel???

:p:p

I'm sure any signed agreement will be very specific as to what happens when/if Israel gets off its lazy/paranoid ass and decided to leave the Golan.

how about this? Israel doesn't sign any agreemants with Syria unless they spell out specifically and unequivecally will be done if/when Israel leaves 1/3, 2/3rds, and then the whole of the Golan Heights.

does that calm your fears? or do you simply just think Arabs can't be trusted.

gnome

15th March 2010, 07:22 PM

so....that's you problem with peace between Syria and Israel???

:p:p

I'm sure any signed agreement will be very specific as to what happens when/if Israel gets off its lazy/paranoid ass and decided to leave the Golan.

how about this? Israel doesn't sign any agreemants with Syria unless they spell out specifically and unequivecally will be done if/when Israel leaves 1/3, 2/3rds, and then the whole of the Golan Heights.

does that calm your fears? or do you simply just think Arabs can't be trusted.

I think that Israel should be willing to deal--but I think this in particular is a bad deal.

Syria needs to offer a change more substantive than just promising formal diplomatic relations.

ddt

15th March 2010, 07:30 PM

No, it says "Half of the Golan could lead to an end to enmity".

Not will, could. Israel gives up half the land, and then Syria gets to decide if that's enough to end "enmity".

The exact quote is:
Speaking with Haaretz over e-mail, the conflict resolution specialist said that following an Israeli withdrawal from half the territory it holds on the Golan Heights, the two states would declare an end to the state of enmity between them as a first step.

I read that "would" as a sure consequence. If Israel withdraws, I & S declare end to enmity. Do you agree?

WildCat

15th March 2010, 07:45 PM

The exact quote is:

I read that "would" as a sure consequence. If Israel withdraws, I & S declare end to enmity. Do you agree?
"following an Israeli withdrawal".

Let me know when the promises are the other way around.

Thunder

15th March 2010, 08:22 PM

"a full withdrawal would allow a Syrian embassy in Israel"

cause...and effect.

but of course, A-Rabs ain't to be trusted.

The Fool

15th March 2010, 09:23 PM

"following an Israeli withdrawal".

Let me know when the promises are the other way around.

and what difference would that possibly make as you feel israel should not pull out first second or at the same-time upsidedown rightway up inside out or painted blue......

WildCat

15th March 2010, 09:39 PM

"a full withdrawal would allow a Syrian embassy in Israel"

cause...and effect.

but of course, A-Rabs ain't to be trusted.
Lots of could and would in that, isn't there?

Let me know when Syria offers something definitive.

WildCat

15th March 2010, 09:41 PM

and what difference would that possibly make as you feel israel should not pull out first second or at the same-time upsidedown rightway up inside out or painted blue......
If you give me $5,000 the Fool, I could give you a shiny new BMW.

Shall I PM you my address? Cashiers check only please.

quixotecoyote

15th March 2010, 10:12 PM

I could do it for $4,000

and I would take paypal

WildCat

15th March 2010, 10:15 PM

I could do it for $4,000

and I would take paypal
:mad:

The Fool

16th March 2010, 03:27 AM

If you give me $5,000 the Fool, I could give you a shiny new BMW.

Shall I PM you my address? Cashiers check only please.
electric windows?

Moss

16th March 2010, 04:34 AM

Does end of enmity equal peace? Or just an extended ceasefire? I'm not trying to make a semantic argument out of this, I really have a hard time finding out what kind of status there is to the Israeli-Syrian relationship at the moment.
Same goes for what the whole Operation Orchard business was about. Especially the silence of the other Arab nations makes that one a big puzzle.

WildCat

16th March 2010, 05:38 AM

electric windows?
Any new BMW I could give you would be fully loaded. I can even throw in a gas card good for 5 years!

Thunder

16th March 2010, 05:45 AM

Lots of could and would in that, isn't there?

Let me know when Syria offers something definitive.

the argument you are making here is pathetic.

The Fool

16th March 2010, 04:22 PM

Any new BMW I could give you would be fully loaded. I can even throw in a gas card good for 5 years!
Its a deal....can you give me the VIN number off the cars Chassis please?

this is all good fun and all but is there any point you are trying to make beyond the fact that you find arabs untrustworthy?

The Fool

16th March 2010, 04:26 PM

Thunder

16th March 2010, 04:28 PM

clearly, many right-wing Jews fear peace...like a life-long caged bird fears freedom.

ddt

16th March 2010, 04:39 PM

Does end of enmity equal peace? Or just an extended ceasefire? I'm not trying to make a semantic argument out of this, I really have a hard time finding out what kind of status there is to the Israeli-Syrian relationship at the moment.
Technically, they're still at war from the 1948 war. The same holds for Lebanon and Iraq and maybe some other Arab states I forget. There was a ceasefire agreement in 1949 but there never was a peace treaty.

Well, I'm not sure to what extent the traditional ways of making war - declaring war before you actually attack, and making a peace treaty afterwards - are still observed, and sometimes such a peace treaty can take a really long time. After all, your and my country have only formally been at peace since 1990 with the 4+2 treaty. ;) (but recent emnity has more to do with Hölzenbein's schwalbe than with WW2 :))

Moss

16th March 2010, 04:43 PM

hmmm...does the end of conflict equel peace? Does the absense of light equal darkness?

as for Israel and syria......I think, in the end, mummy or daddy are going to have to step in and impose a solution. They are both quite annoying.

While waxing philosophical can be interesting, I was actually asking about the legal status.

Thunder

16th March 2010, 04:49 PM

quixotecoyote

16th March 2010, 05:00 PM

Its a deal....can you give me the VIN number off the cars Chassis please?

this is all good fun and all but is there any point you are trying to make beyond the fact that you find arabs untrustworthy?

Is there any particular reason you keep trying to equate the Syrian government with all arabs?

Moss

16th March 2010, 05:13 PM

Will the Assad regime government still be in place after making peace with Israel?

Thunder

16th March 2010, 05:14 PM

Will the Assad regime government still be in place after making peace with Israel?

how many Presidents of Egypt have their been since Sadat was assassinated?

did the peace treaty with Jordan collapse after Hussein died?

Moss

16th March 2010, 05:26 PM

how many Presidents of Egypt have their been since Sadat was assassinated?

did the peace treaty with Jordan collapse after Hussein died?

I'm not sure if the situations are totally similar. The constellation of an Alawite minority dynasty ruling over a Sunnite population isn't exactly stable. And there's also Operation Orchard and the whole business of getting pushed out of Lebanon.

The Fool

16th March 2010, 05:31 PM

Will the Assad regime government still be in place after making peace with Israel?
would Netanyahu survive the loss of territory? I think his racist loonie coalition partners would gut him.

Moss

16th March 2010, 05:41 PM

I wouldn't exactly mourn the loss of Netanyahu or Lieberman. Not that that was the question.
But I don't expect a military coup in Israel either. Syria seems more prone to that. Even within the Assad family.

WildCat

16th March 2010, 05:49 PM

Its a deal....can you give me the VIN number off the cars Chassis please?
I could do that once I receive your check.

WildCat

16th March 2010, 05:51 PM

Is there any particular reason you keep trying to equate the Syrian government with all arabs?
Why yes there is. It's a pathetic attempt to make me appear racist rather than suspicious of the motives of the dictator of a pariah state which sponsors terrorism.

Thunder

16th March 2010, 06:44 PM

would Netanyahu survive the loss of territory? I think his racist loonie coalition partners would gut him.

careful. you know its anti-Semitic to call an Israel a racist.

:D

gnome

16th March 2010, 07:14 PM

Israel and Syria sign a peace agreement.

Agreement says such:

1. Israel leaves 1/3 of the Golan Heights in exchange for a formal cessation of hostilities.
2. Israel leaves another third, for an exchange of diplomatic reprentatives.
3. Israel leaves the final third, for the opening of full economic, industrial, and political relations between the two states.

The Golan Heights will become a dimilitarized zone. No mechanized forces or troops with heavy weapons allowed. Only 1,000 Syrian police with light arms for security purposes and border control. The UN will monitor the demilitarization with 2,000 troops for 15 years.

Possible early warning stations to be set up for the purpose of monitoring the security situation will be set up, run and maintained by the EU and Russia.

sound good? it does to me.

The concern I think is:

1. Israel leaves 1/3 of the Golan Heights in anticipation of Syrian promise of cessation of formal hostilities.
2. "informal" hostilities erupt from groups intent on sabotaging the process, with or without the collaboration of the Syrian government.
3. Syrian response to internal hostiles inadequate or ineffective.
4. Israel must now choose between breaching the agreement with Syria in order to defend themselves against the irregulars, or leaving land in Syrian hands with no actual peace gained--possibly to repeat the process for more land a few years down the line.

Not so much a mistrust of Arabs in general as the Syrian government in particular.

If it's true that supplying extremists continues, a cessation of that might be a good first step.

The Fool

16th March 2010, 09:31 PM

4. Israel must now choose between breaching the agreement with Syria in order to defend themselves against the irregulars, or leaving land in Syrian hands with no actual peace gained--possibly to repeat the process for more land a few years down the line.

in what way would Israel defending itself against attacks breach an agreement with syria? I don't imagine that Israel would agree not to shoot back if someone was shooting at them from territory returned to Syria. What if people started firing at Israel today? From existing Syrian territory? I would expect Israel to take out the weapons... I can't see how syria getting a bit bigger is going to change anything.

Giz

16th March 2010, 09:52 PM

in what way would Israel defending itself against attacks breach an agreement with syria? I don't imagine that Israel would agree not to shoot back if someone was shooting at them from territory returned to Syria. What if people started firing at Israel today? From existing Syrian territory? I would expect Israel to take out the weapons... I can't see how syria getting a bit bigger is going to change anything.

Israel tried shooting back in operation Cast Lead and the world screamed blue murder. Why should they expect that they would get a fair hearing next time round?

The Fool

16th March 2010, 10:09 PM

Israel tried shooting back in operation Cast Lead and the world screamed blue murder. Why should they expect that they would get a fair hearing next time round?
sigh....

whine about cast lead in the appropriate thread.

People squeal and squeal when any Israel action is questioned...whats new......or don't you believe it would be possible for Israel to overstep the mark?

but anyway...back to the point. Nobody is saying anything along the lines of Israel not being allowed to defend itself. This is a tired old baseless chant. Israel is accountable for its actions just like anyone else.

Maybe you could help out with your comments on why all this grief would suddenly sprout from land returned to syria and not land currently in syria?????????????

Giz

17th March 2010, 06:17 AM

Maybe you could help out with your comments on why all this grief would suddenly sprout from land returned to syria and not land currently in syria?????????????

It's more that people see no reason to trust Syria (but many reasons to distrust them), and no commitment from Syria that they would do anything anyway.

Thunder

17th March 2010, 01:13 PM

quixotecoyote

17th March 2010, 01:20 PM

Oh look, it's more lies and straw from Parky.

<shock!>

Thunder

17th March 2010, 01:25 PM

Oh look, it's more lies and straw from Parky.

lie? what lie?????

i'll have you know my previous post is one GIGANTIC strawman.

:p

WildCat

17th March 2010, 01:26 PM

Oh look, it's more lies and straw from Parky.

<shock!>
But it's all he has!

eta: and now I'm a "right-wing Jew"! :dl:

gnome

17th March 2010, 01:42 PM

Let me sum up the argument of our local right-wing Jews:

Arabs....err......Muslims.....errrr Syrians cannot be trusted, therefore no peace treaty with them is worth its weight in spit.

We would LOVE to make peace with them, we really really would. But these "people" simply cannot be trusted.

Besides, the Golan is sooooo lovely. And you know, since the Holocaust happened...

I do not, for example, claim that no progress can be made. But I believe there needs to be more tangible action on Syria's side as part of a deal for Israel to give up any of Golan.

WildCat

17th March 2010, 02:03 PM

I do not, for example, claim that no progress can be made. But I believe there needs to be more tangible action on Syria's side as part of a deal for Israel to give up any of Golan.
Like an end to materially supporting, arming, financing, and harboring internationally recognized terrorist organizations as well as being a conduit for Iran to do the same.

If Syria is serious about peace they have to show it by ending support for terrorists and in fact actively pursue them. Otherwise, this is a dog and pony show. Of course, some are impressed with dogs and ponies...

Giz

17th March 2010, 06:09 PM

eta: and now I'm a "right-wing Jew"! :dl:

You're not the only one! ****, I'd better tell my family!

Thunder

18th March 2010, 07:08 AM

eta: and now I'm a "right-wing Jew"! :dl:

do you support the existence of the WB settlements? do you believe that Jerusalem should not be shared? do you believe the Golan should not be traded for peace?

than you are a right-wing Jew.

WildCat

18th March 2010, 01:50 PM

do you support the existence of the WB settlements? do you believe that Jerusalem should not be shared? do you believe the Golan should not be traded for peace?

than you are a right-wing Jew.
Damn, and I thought your mother had to be Jewish or something... :boggled:

Safe-Keeper

18th March 2010, 03:22 PM

A stone cannot fly.
WildCat cannot fly.
Hence, Wildcat is a stone.

Scootch

18th March 2010, 03:26 PM

A stone cannot fly.
WildCat cannot fly.
Hence, Wildcat is a stone.

Build a bridge out of him!
(Monty Python Holy Grail reference)

Thunder

18th March 2010, 04:38 PM

Damn, and I thought your mother had to be Jewish or something... :boggled:

well, I guess you could also a be a fundy Christian.

Virus

19th March 2010, 12:55 AM

You don't have to be a right wing Jew or fundy Christian to think Syria's word isn't worth jack. Since when did the Assad regime ever demonstrate its word is good on anything?

Thunder

19th March 2010, 05:48 AM

Since when did the Assad regime ever demonstrate its word is good on anything?

you appear to be subjecting that the Assad regime cannot be trusted. got any evidence for this?

Scootch

19th March 2010, 07:56 AM

Well if you want Israel to agree to give up the Golan to Syria you would have to prove that Syria could be trusted.
For example, if you want me to trust you would have to prove to me you are trustworthy and not me somehow having to justify that you are not trustworthy.

Thunder

19th March 2010, 08:08 AM

For example, if you want me to trust you would have to prove to me you are trustworthy and not me somehow having to justify that you are not trustworthy.

you think i can't be trusted? well, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

if Israel says a treaty with Syria aint worth ****, because Assad can't be trusted, then PROVE an agreement with him can't be trusted.

you make the claim? you get the burden.

Scootch

19th March 2010, 08:22 AM

If Syria wants Golan they will have to prove they are trustworthy. If Israel believes Syria is untrustworthy then they will not give up the Golan Heights.
And if Syria wants the land so much and if their intentions are truly peaceful, it would be in their best interests to show they can be trusted, and after the long history Syria has with Israel that is not going to be easy. In this case the first step is Syria's, not Israel. And it is going to take a lot more than lip service too.
And using another example (I didnt mean to imply you were untrustworthy, it was just an example for the sake of arguement) If i get an email from a Nigerian Prince needing my assistance with fund withdrawls I do not have to prove the email is a untrustworthy, I just do not trust it is on the level and I do not respond.

Giz

19th March 2010, 08:27 AM

you think i can't be trusted? well, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

if Israel says a treaty with Syria aint worth ****, because Assad can't be trusted, then PROVE an agreement with him can't be trusted.

you make the claim? you get the burden.

Parky, I have a bridge to sell you. What, you don't trust me? How dare you!! I demand that you prove I'm not trustworthy!

Ps. I am not Israeli, which apparantely makes me 1000% more trustworthy. Maybe not up to Assad trustworthiness but pretty good.

Pps. Come on Parky, you know you want that bridge. So maybe it doesn't exist… but you'll never know if you don't go for it!

Thunder

19th March 2010, 08:37 AM

The EU, USA, and Russia may soon start pushing Israel to resume peace talks with Syria. If Israel responds by saying "we should not be expected to have peace talks with Syria, for they simply cannot be trusted", they may be asked to provide evidence that Syria cannot be trusted.

oh poo.

gnome

19th March 2010, 09:48 AM

Parky, I notice you haven't responded to posts that point out a specific situational reason to mistrust and continue to presume that the problem is that "syrians can't be trusted".

WildCat

19th March 2010, 10:36 AM

you appear to be subjecting that the Assad regime cannot be trusted. got any evidence for this?
Quoted for posterity.

Thunder

19th March 2010, 11:18 AM

Parky, I notice you haven't responded to posts that point out a specific situational reason to mistrust

Im sure right-wing Israelis can find all the reasons in the world, to avoid making peace with their A-Rab neighbors.

Thunder

19th March 2010, 11:19 AM

Quoted for posterity.

My posterior is at your disposal. :p

WildCat

19th March 2010, 11:31 AM

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/assad_ahmedinejad.jpg
"Of course you can trust me, just ask my BFF here"

Thunder

19th March 2010, 11:35 AM

http://thm-a03.yimg.com/nimage/66c46928f9d955cc

"trust me"

http://thm-a04.yimg.com/nimage/7c089c3ae6850cc4

"trust me"

Scootch

19th March 2010, 11:54 AM

Parky76, at the beginning of this thread you stated Israel could make peace with Syria, and you stated the reasoning behind that is Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan. Now you state Israel won't make peace with Syria because they are bigotted against Arabs. How could these bigots make peace with the Arabs of Egypt and Jordan but still hate the Arabs of Syria. That would be like the KKK coming to an agreement with African Americans in Alabama but still be prejudice against African Americans in North Carolina.

Thunder

19th March 2010, 12:00 PM

bigjelmapro

27th March 2010, 09:46 AM

Not really.

Thunder

27th March 2010, 02:14 PM

That would be like the KKK coming to an agreement with African Americans in Alabama but still be prejudice against African Americans in North Carolina.

take away the $3 billion a year bribe to Israel from the USA since Camp David, and I bet that peace deal would fall apart very quickly.

Skeptic

27th March 2010, 09:54 PM

Well, Syria's support of terrorism (Hizbullah, Hamas), antisemitic lunacy (Secretary of Defense wrote a novel claiming Jews use the blood of Muslim babies; national TV broadcasts the "Protoocols" as history), glorification and shielding of Nazi war criminals (the Mufti, Alois Brunner), human rights record (the 20,000 dead in Hama) certainly didn't improve from 1979 to 1994.

It got worse, if anything -- all of what I am saying here either happened after 1979 or continued from 1979 to 1994 and beyond.

Skeptic

27th March 2010, 11:18 PM

If what parky is saying about the "$3 bribe" to Egypt is true, this is proof Israel should not have signed a peace treaty with Egypt, not that it should sign one with Syria.

bigjelmapro

28th March 2010, 01:26 AM

take away the $3 billion a year bribe to Israel from the USA since Camp David, and I bet that peace deal would fall apart very quickly.
You mean military grants/loans here?

Skeptic

28th March 2010, 04:51 AM

take away the $3 billion a year bribe to Israel from the USA since Camp David, and I bet that peace deal would fall apart very quickly.

I see I misunderstood parky. apparently he thinks the only reason Israel signed the peace deal is a $3 billion to Israel, not to Egypt. Well, that's odd -- I'm just old enough to remember the euphoria about Sadat's visit and the peace agreement. Nobody so much as mentioned anything as this loan guarantee.

Funny, though, how this goes. First it is demanded that Israel withdraw and is told it's got nothing to worry about because of American guarantees of one sort of another. Then, in a total inversion of the truth, it is assumed that the very same guarantees are not there as a protection for Israel for making huge concessions, but a bribe for the war-thirsty Israel to stop starting a war. Then the "Bribe" is taken away -- why protect such a war-mongering country, anyway?

So:

If Israel does not withdraw from the Golan, it is called a warmonger.

If Israel DOES withdraw from the Golan, it loses the ground, the security guarantees it is given are quickly turned into "Bribes" to stop it from starting another war, AND it is called a warmonger anyway.

Not much of a choice.