Post by: MicroBalrog on May 21, 2008, 11:18:14 AM
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has described peace talks with Syria as "exciting", but warned that they might involve "painful concessions".
"It's always better to talk than shoot," Mr Olmert said, though he did not say what the concessions might be.
Earlier, the two sides revealed that they had begun the talks - the first since 2000 - under Turkish mediation.
Previous negotiations collapsed over a possible withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied in 1967.
Israel and Syria are still technically at war over the area.
New momentum
Mr Olmert's office on Wednesday said the two sides were talking "in good faith and openly".
The prime minister later told journalists that the "negotiations won't be easy".
He noted that previous Israeli leaders had been prepared to make "painful concessions" for peace with Syria.
It was reported in April that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had been mediating in talks between the two sides.
In a statement on Wednesday, Syria's foreign ministry confirmed that the two countries had "expressed their desire to conduct the talks in goodwill and decided to continue dialogue with seriousness to achieve comprehensive peace".
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Israel had agreed to withdraw from the Golan up to the armistice line of 1967.
Israel has refused to comment on the claim, although a spokesman for Mr Olmert said the current talks were being carried out with the failure of the previous ones in mind, and that the talks had recently gathered momentum.
The US and the EU have welcomed news of the negotiations, and both have praised Turkey's role as facilitator.
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said he hoped the two parties "will reach a peaceful solution".
Analysts suggest that, in return for any withdrawal, Israel would demand Syria sever its ties with Iran and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon.
However, they add that withdrawal from the Golan would not be popular with Israelis.
The reports of talks in April sparked outrage in the Israeli parliament, where several MPs said they would try to accelerate the passage of a bill requiring any withdrawal from the Golan to be backed by a referendum.
Mr Olmert is currently battling corruption allegations, and the BBC's Katya Adler in Jerusalem says the prime minister's critics believe the confirmation of peace talks may be an attempt to divert some attention from that.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7413657.stm
Post by: Manedwolf on May 21, 2008, 11:22:49 AM
Quote
Analysts suggest that, in return for any withdrawal, Israel would demand Syria sever its ties with Iran and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon.
Of COURSE they'll agree to sever ties.
Publicly.
"All war is deception".
If Olmert believes them, he's a fool.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 21, 2008, 11:27:18 AM
But we do need peace with Syria, and if we are ever to get it, we'll have to give back the Golan somehow.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 21, 2008, 11:39:50 AM
Except the fact that they'd have Golan.
You cannot appease people who want to destroy you. They'll just take, and take again, and keep up the same crap.
The only way that'd work is if the leaders of Syria were told that if they started the same sh_t again, their next summit would be a closed-door session with some Mossad commandos, and they'd not be leaving it.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 21, 2008, 11:41:58 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 21, 2008, 11:42:46 AM
Syria, as it's being run now, would stop publicly funding terrorists long enough to get Golan back. Then they'd hit the reset button, start funding terrorists again, and nothing would change.
Except the fact that they'd have Golan.
You cannot appease people who want to destroy you. They'll just take, and take again, and keep up the same crap.
The only way that'd work is if the leaders of Syria were told that if they started the same sh_t again, their next summit would be a closed-door session with some Mossad commandos, and they'd not be leaving it.
Except the fact that they'd have Golan.
You cannot appease people who want to destroy you. They'll just take, and take again, and keep up the same crap.
The only way that'd work is if the leaders of Syria were told that if they started the same sh_t again, their next summit would be a closed-door session with some Mossad commandos, and they'd not be leaving it.
Exactly.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 21, 2008, 11:50:09 AM
Additionally, no Israeli administration to date has denied that we intend to eventually give the Golan back. It's just the time hasn't come yet.
Post by: De Selby on May 21, 2008, 12:26:01 PM
The only way that'd work is if the leaders of Syria were told that if they started the same sh_t again, their next summit would be a closed-door session with some Mossad commandos, and they'd not be leaving it.
The last "closed door session" with the Arab impersonating commandos resulted in the ranking officer in charge of the program being killed by Hizbullah roadway security guards.
The time for waiving the fist to demand everything is over for Israel; A better alternative is to seek democracy and personal freedoms on both sides of the Golan Heights-if the people living in the Golan and in both countries had more of a say in this, it probably would've been settled long ago.
Post by: Antibubba on May 21, 2008, 08:53:27 PM
Then again, being a parliamentary democracy, it'll take years to get a majority government that'll allow any peace with teeth in it.
Post by: Antibubba on May 21, 2008, 08:59:58 PM
Quote
The time for waiving the fist to demand everything is over for Israel
Beg your pardon? Israel isn't the one constantly threatening total destruction of another country. Israel isn't the one launching rockets and mortars in the hopes of demolishing an elementary school. I don't see Jews strapping explosives to their bodies before getting on a crowded bus.
If you are going to hit someone, don't act hurt or surprised when that someone hits back.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 21, 2008, 09:00:21 PM
So yeah, it's all gone pear-shaped all of a sudden. The media are in a firm belief that Ollmert is doing whatever it is that he is doing with Syria not because of real concern for the country, but because he wants to distract the nation from his five concurrent criminal investigations (as I said yesterday). The headlines are truly berserk stuff like THE GOLAN AND THE CASH and other such insinuations are everywhere.
The Knesset is discussing a change to the Basic Law that'll demand an 80-40 majority in the Knesset to give the Golan back. Even Meretz [Meretz for the love of God!] are accusing Ollmert of lacking legitimacy to complete the move.
The inhabitants of the Golan Heights are angry beyond description, and I heard their various activists speaking on the radio today, with high-sounding patriotic pitches ("The country is in danger! The People are with us!") and all. People are talking in buses about how "Ollmert is selling the country".
The Syrians in the meanwhile have leaked that it has been agreed that the Golan will be returned, and now the only discussion is the time frames and conditions for a gradual turnover of power. The government here neither confirms nor denies this.
Post by: De Selby on May 21, 2008, 10:46:39 PM
shootinstudent said:
Beg your pardon? Israel isn't the one constantly threatening total destruction of another country. Israel isn't the one launching rockets and mortars in the hopes of demolishing an elementary school. I don't see Jews strapping explosives to their bodies before getting on a crowded bus.
If you are going to hit someone, don't act hurt or surprised when that someone hits back.
Quote
The time for waiving the fist to demand everything is over for Israel
Beg your pardon? Israel isn't the one constantly threatening total destruction of another country. Israel isn't the one launching rockets and mortars in the hopes of demolishing an elementary school. I don't see Jews strapping explosives to their bodies before getting on a crowded bus.
If you are going to hit someone, don't act hurt or surprised when that someone hits back.
Wait a second there-that isn't true. Israel threatens to annihilate its enemies in every conflict-look at what they said about Lebanon in the run up to the 2006 war. Same for Hamas, Syria, and Iran. There is more than enough fist shaking in Israel to fill the airwaves of every Arab state in the region.
You should note that the suicide bombing campaign started more than 20 years after the Golan heights were seized, in a war where Israel was clearly the first to shoot (that's why it turned out so well for Israel-the surprise attack wiped out any opposition on day one of the battle.)
Post by: Manedwolf on May 22, 2008, 04:06:15 AM
You should note that the suicide bombing campaign started more than 20 years after the Golan heights were seized, in a war where Israel was clearly the first to shoot (that's why it turned out so well for Israel-the surprise attack wiped out any opposition on day one of the battle.)
First to shoot because THEY HAD A GUN POINTED AT THEIR HEAD in the form of aircraft ready to launch and tank units on the move!
If they weren't about to be attacked, and obviously so, there would have been no war! As it is, they not only beat back the multiple nations who had ganged up on them, they won more territory from the aggressors. And, as an added trivia bit, some Israeli units were still armed with antique Mauser 98Ks. They still won.
Where DO you get your revisionist history? Hamas' media arm?
They're still trying to hide the fact that superior tactics routed a much more powerful multination force, especially in the maneuvers against the Egyptian armor. Because it's an embarrassment. Just like the 1973 Yom Kippur war, when the Arab nations tried again and lost was an embarassement. Like how Syria recently boasted that nothing could get through their state-of-the-art Russian air defense system, then Israel got through undetected and broke their soon-to-be weapons production reactor. It was an embarrassment.
The suicide bombing started out of sheer rage because every time these militarily superior, larger Arab nations tried to gang up on Israel and smash it, they ended up getting their teeth broken and ass handed to them, and lost more land, too. So they went to asymmetrical warfare against civilian populations, as terrorists, the equivalent of a brat going and punching someone's defenseless younger sibling because the sibling their own size keeps repelling their attacks.
Now they supply rockets to people who launch them deliberately into civilian centers. Because that little bit of incoherently flailing rage is all they have left. Every time they try to build a nuke, it gets taken away from them.
That's the facts.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 22, 2008, 04:31:35 AM
Quote
And, as an added trivia bit, some Israeli units were still armed with antique Mauser 98Ks. They still won.
There were some units still using 98K's up until very recently, specifically until they closed the Civil Guard's sniper unit.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 22, 2008, 06:03:50 AM
Post by: doc2rn on May 22, 2008, 06:14:33 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on May 22, 2008, 06:14:39 AM
If they give back the Golan Heights, I predict resumption of random shelling of Israeli territory within a year.
You have to give them time to wreck all the Israeli-built infrastructure first, so the lights don't work, the water doesn't run, and factional violence blows most of the buildings to pocked shells that people steal the windowframes out of. After all, it's not "home" without a few RPG holes, the rattle of AKs and the neighborhood burning pile of tires.
Then they can start shelling Israel again.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 22, 2008, 06:32:36 AM
If they give back the Golan Heights, I predict resumption of random shelling of Israeli territory within a year.
Did you READ my last post?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on May 22, 2008, 06:40:50 AM
Post by: De Selby on May 22, 2008, 09:20:06 PM
You should note that the suicide bombing campaign started more than 20 years after the Golan heights were seized, in a war where Israel was clearly the first to shoot (that's why it turned out so well for Israel-the surprise attack wiped out any opposition on day one of the battle.)
First to shoot because THEY HAD A GUN POINTED AT THEIR HEAD in the form of aircraft ready to launch and tank units on the move!
If they weren't about to be attacked, and obviously so, there would have been no war! As it is, they not only beat back the multiple nations who had ganged up on them, they won more territory from the aggressors. And, as an added trivia bit, some Israeli units were still armed with antique Mauser 98Ks. They still won.
Where DO you get your revisionist history? Hamas' media arm?
They're still trying to hide the fact that superior tactics routed a much more powerful multination force, especially in the maneuvers against the Egyptian armor. Because it's an embarrassment. Just like the 1973 Yom Kippur war, when the Arab nations tried again and lost was an embarassement. Like how Syria recently boasted that nothing could get through their state-of-the-art Russian air defense system, then Israel got through undetected and broke their soon-to-be weapons production reactor. It was an embarrassment.
The suicide bombing started out of sheer rage because every time these militarily superior, larger Arab nations tried to gang up on Israel and smash it, they ended up getting their teeth broken and ass handed to them, and lost more land, too. So they went to asymmetrical warfare against civilian populations, as terrorists, the equivalent of a brat going and punching someone's defenseless younger sibling because the sibling their own size keeps repelling their attacks.
Now they supply rockets to people who launch them deliberately into civilian centers. Because that little bit of incoherently flailing rage is all they have left. Every time they try to build a nuke, it gets taken away from them.
That's the facts.
Sorry friend, but you are in need of some serious remedial history on this war.
First off, Israel's surprise attack wiped out the only real air force that Israel faced-leaving Israel with the ability to bomb enemy forces at will throughout the campaign. The advantage of total air superiority is impossible to underestimate, although the IDF has managed to prove that it can be made irrelevant in the most recent war in Lebanon.
Your picture of the war is wrong for two reasons:
1. It basically takes the Arab propaganda as gospel with respect to their militaries, which were poorly armed, poorly led, and poorly organized in 1967. The "advantage" did not exist in any respect, although they were at that stage comparable to the Israeli forces (as opposed to now, with the Arabs being way behind)...had the Arabs attacked first, the war almost certainly would not have been so lopsided. (See 1973, when Israel very nearly was destroyed.)
and
2. It ignores the proclamations of the Israeli military leadership, including Begin, that made clear that the 1967 war was a policy driven war. It was not a strike to avert imminent disaster-it was a decided campaign to subdue in advance any opposition to Israeli dominance in the region.
This claim:
Quote
The suicide bombing started out of sheer rage because every time these militarily superior, larger Arab nations tried to gang up on Israel and smash it,
Is completely unsupported by the facts. The suicide bombing campaign kicked off with quite public proclamations as to its supposed "justification"-it was a response to the massacre in Hebron by Baruch Goldstein at friday prayers. It followed the Hebron massacre by a matter of months, and all of the suicide attacks referenced the Hebron incident.
In a nutshell, it would be hard to have an analysis more obviously wrong than the ones you have posted on the 1967 war and the suicide bombing campaign (which didn't start until 1994), at least if the historical documents available are to be considered with any weight.
The only times that the Arab nations ever even held a candle to Israel in terms of military parity were in 67 and 73. There has never been a war agaisnt Israel where the Israelis were outgunned or outnumbered-not once....although the IDF certainly has managed to bungle wars even with its enormous advantage.
Post by: seeker_two on May 23, 2008, 01:25:09 AM
Post by: Typhoon on May 25, 2008, 08:47:01 AM
Quote
2. It ignores the proclamations of the Israeli military leadership, including Begin, that made clear that the 1967 war was a policy driven war. It was not a strike to avert imminent disaster-it was a decided campaign to subdue in advance any opposition to Israeli dominance in the region.
Really?
Israel was more than provoked in 1967 and her security was more than at risk..
1) May 16, 1967: Nassar requested (read: demanded) removal of UN peacekeeping forces in the Sinai peninsula. Without putting it before the UN General Assembly as he was supposed to do, Secretary General U Thant caved and ordered the removal.
2) Egyptian troops move into the Sinai. Syria mobilizes in Golan. Jordan signs defense pact and joins the Egyptian-Syrian alliance on May 30, placing its forces on both sides of the Jordan under Egyptian command.
3) Egypt blockades the Israeli port of Eilat on May 22-23 1967 in violation of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958 that recognized Israels rights to the Straits of Tiran.
4) June 4: Iraq joins the Egypt, Syria and Jordan alliance. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq publishes this little gem of a statement:
The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map.
I'd like to see those proclamations by the Israeli military leadership...
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 25, 2008, 10:00:46 AM
Post by: De Selby on May 25, 2008, 10:38:19 AM
shootinstudent wrote:
Really?
Israel was more than provoked in 1967 and her security was more than at risk..
1) May 16, 1967: Nassar requested (read: demanded) removal of UN peacekeeping forces in the Sinai peninsula. Without putting it before the UN General Assembly as he was supposed to do, Secretary General U Thant caved and ordered the removal.
2) Egyptian troops move into the Sinai. Syria mobilizes in Golan. Jordan signs defense pact and joins the Egyptian-Syrian alliance on May 30, placing its forces on both sides of the Jordan under Egyptian command.
3) Egypt blockades the Israeli port of Eilat on May 22-23 1967 in violation of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958 that recognized Israels rights to the Straits of Tiran.
4) June 4: Iraq joins the Egypt, Syria and Jordan alliance. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq publishes this little gem of a statement:
The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map.
I'd like to see those proclamations by the Israeli military leadership...
Quote
2. It ignores the proclamations of the Israeli military leadership, including Begin, that made clear that the 1967 war was a policy driven war. It was not a strike to avert imminent disaster-it was a decided campaign to subdue in advance any opposition to Israeli dominance in the region.
Really?
Israel was more than provoked in 1967 and her security was more than at risk..
1) May 16, 1967: Nassar requested (read: demanded) removal of UN peacekeeping forces in the Sinai peninsula. Without putting it before the UN General Assembly as he was supposed to do, Secretary General U Thant caved and ordered the removal.
2) Egyptian troops move into the Sinai. Syria mobilizes in Golan. Jordan signs defense pact and joins the Egyptian-Syrian alliance on May 30, placing its forces on both sides of the Jordan under Egyptian command.
3) Egypt blockades the Israeli port of Eilat on May 22-23 1967 in violation of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958 that recognized Israels rights to the Straits of Tiran.
4) June 4: Iraq joins the Egypt, Syria and Jordan alliance. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq publishes this little gem of a statement:
The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map.
I'd like to see those proclamations by the Israeli military leadership...
Yeah, I've seen the list before. I prefer to cruise the Israeli government's webpages for information on the conflict, though, and this is what you would find if you did that instead of cutting and pasting lists floating around on the propaganda-web:
Here's what Menachem Begin himself had to say about the 1967 war: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National
Quote
In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary.
Here's what Israel did immediately following the 1967 war (annex newly conquered territory as part of Israel):
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Jerusalem+After+the+Six+Day+War+-1967-.htm
And here is what the United States had to say about the lead up to the 167 war (these cables were written at the time). Peruse the list of incidents, and there is simply no honest way to conclude that 1967 was a war of just "provocation and threat" against the innocent Israeli government. It was clearly involved in ratcheting up the climate for war by making constant attacks on its Arab neighbors:
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xviii/zh.html
In sum, Israel was attacking Jordan monthly while the King was begging for the Israelis to stop, because of how powerless it was making him look to his own people. That was the year before the 1967 war-so no, it was not endless provocation of Israel.
The grandstanding by the Arabs that you posted was mainly boasting designed to help the Arabs keep power at home, and if you didn't pay attention to the constant Israeli bomb attacks that preceded them, you would miss that. You can't completely ignore what one side is doing in a conflict and then claim to have an answer about how it started.
Post by: De Selby on May 25, 2008, 10:48:36 AM
The Israeli military leadership is not allowed to make proclamations. Thank you, we have laws in this country.
My mistake
.Edit to read "suggestions of historic significance"
Post by: macpherson on May 28, 2008, 06:20:46 AM
Quote
In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary.
The Egyptians were concentrating their forces on the borders, I don't know about you but in most parts of the world that would be construed as preparing to attack, and when a country the size of Israel is threatened, any attack could be fatal, so preemptive strike could spell the difference between victory or destruction of the country. If you see a man pointing a gun at your head, are you going to wait until he pulls the trigger to find out if he's "grandstanding" or not?
When Begin spoke of sending the army home, that's exactly what they did in 1973; the PM and most of the military leaders firmly believed they would not be attacked despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and they almost were annihilated because of it. A large part of the IDF is reserve forces that have day jobs; mobilizing the entire army to war footing darn near shuts down the country down and has a severe economic impact that can't be sustained for long. The Arabs took advantage of that when they attacked. Israel is not guilt-free, I'd definitely say mistakes have been made on both sides, but from the beginning, one has been the defender and one has been the attacker, and by and large that is still the case today. Israel doesn't fire rockets indiscriminately at civilians, yes there is collateral damage, but at least they are trying to minimize it. Hamas attacks from behind women and children like cowards, then turns and parades their bodies through the streets wailing about the evil zionists. I hope and pray that Olmert does not give up the Golan Heights, because there will be rockets flying from it before the ink has even dried on the papers.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 08:32:43 AM
Yes, we can win a war with them, but the point is, you cannot maintain a country on a war footing forever. It poisons the society with militarism, it's expensive, and if we're constantly at war with them, at one point we are going to lose - it's not possible to win every single time.
The solution is to cede the Golan heights slowly - in increments over, say, 20 years, every increment conditional on good behavior from the Syrians. If they can maintain 20 years of peace, I'm sure they can maintain peace permanently, too.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 28, 2008, 08:50:56 AM
Then you have shells raining down on you, and they have Golan. Wow. Good outcome.
Syria is, as usual, offering a hand in peace with the other hand holding a dagger behind their back. As with all those regimes, the clerics who have the ear of the politicians repeat the endless litany, "Israel must be destroyed." They will never stop.
If Israel shakes that hand and get stabbed without demanding to see both hands first, it's its own fault.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 09:01:08 AM
And they must stop helping the Hez - the Hez ALREADY has rockets that can shell all of Israel, and you know that if war breaks out, they WILL get fired.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 28, 2008, 09:22:05 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 09:24:39 AM
Jordan behaves.
It's quite likely Syria will, too.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 11:37:25 AM
London-based newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat quotes senior Israeli source involved in unofficial talks between Jerusalem, Damascus, who says main disagreement is on location of border line
Roee Nahmias
A senior Israeli source, who took part in unofficial Turkey-mediated talks between Israel and Syria, has said that the two sides are discussing a border line which will be based on the June 4 1967 borders and the future of the Golan Heights' residents, the London-based Arabic-language al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper reported Wednesday.
The source confirmed that "serious progress has been made in the talks."
According to the Israeli source, the future border line is unclear at this time and there are at least two perceptions regarding its location. The two main disagreements, he said, are the border line in northeastern part of Lake Kinneret and another area up north.
He noted that the Syrians sought to "touch the Kinneret waters," while the Israeli object.
Addressing the settlement in the Golan Heights, the Israeli source said that the two sides have already agreed that the Syrian sovereignty over the Golan was Damascus' right, and that a creative formula must be formed in regards to this issue, in a way which will not cause great tension in Israel.
The paper reported that according to the source, 85% of the issues standing between the two countries on the way to a peace deal have already been agreed. One of the issues which have yet to be discussed is Israel's demand that Syria detach itself from Hamas and Hizbullah and break its strategic alliance with Iran.
"I am optimistic," the source told the newspaper reporter. "This does not mean that Syria will have to sever its ties with Iran and its followers in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, but it will join those influencing them in a positive manner in accordance with the peace relations between Israel and Syria.
"We have a clear example for that the relations between Syria and Turkey, just like Damascus withdrew its support for the PKK (Kurdish militant organization fighting for independence from Turkish rule)."
Post by: De Selby on May 28, 2008, 11:46:53 AM
Israel needs to have peace with Syria.
Yes, we can win a war with them, but the point is, you cannot maintain a country on a war footing forever. It poisons the society with militarism, it's expensive, and if we're constantly at war with them, at one point we are going to lose - it's not possible to win every single time.
The solution is to cede the Golan heights slowly - in increments over, say, 20 years, every increment conditional on good behavior from the Syrians. If they can maintain 20 years of peace, I'm sure they can maintain peace permanently, too.
Yes, we can win a war with them, but the point is, you cannot maintain a country on a war footing forever. It poisons the society with militarism, it's expensive, and if we're constantly at war with them, at one point we are going to lose - it's not possible to win every single time.
The solution is to cede the Golan heights slowly - in increments over, say, 20 years, every increment conditional on good behavior from the Syrians. If they can maintain 20 years of peace, I'm sure they can maintain peace permanently, too.
An excellent example of thinking ahead with common sense.
All arguments to the contrary about the trustworthiness of Syria, rockets, Hizbullah, etc. do not negate this very simple fact: A country cannot live in a constant state of war with its neighbors, because eventually, it will lose. Maybe five years from now (extremely unlikely), maybe within 100 years (extremely likely).
What I find troubling is that people in my country are constantly demanding that Israel not make any accords whatsoever with its neighbors-I can see how that might serve the interests of a small segment of America, but I have no idea how that would serve the Israelis. It's a toxic international relationship.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 28, 2008, 11:48:57 AM
What I find troubling is that people in my country are constantly demanding that Israel not make any accords whatsoever with its neighbors-I can see how that might serve the interests of a small segment of America, but I have no idea how that would serve the Israelis. It's a toxic international relationship.
Maybe because Israel is like a marksman with a pistol surrounded by angry people with AKs? They only don't shoot because they know that at least one of them will be killed by a return shot. But if Israel lowered that pistol, they'd open fire immediately.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 11:50:29 AM
Maybe because Israel is like a marksman with a pistol surrounded by angry people with AKs? They only don't shoot because they know that at least one of them will be killed by a return shot. But if Israel lowered that pistol, they'd open fire immediately.
And yet we have peace with Egypt and Jordan.
Post by: De Selby on May 28, 2008, 11:54:33 AM
What I find troubling is that people in my country are constantly demanding that Israel not make any accords whatsoever with its neighbors-I can see how that might serve the interests of a small segment of America, but I have no idea how that would serve the Israelis. It's a toxic international relationship.
Maybe because Israel is like a marksman with a pistol surrounded by angry people with AKs? They only don't shoot because they know that at least one of them will be killed by a return shot. But if Israel lowered that pistol, they'd open fire immediately.
Wait a second, let's be accurate-it's more like a fully armored tank surrounded by guys with AK's. The disparity in force is overwhelming, but there's always a chance that sooner or later one of the rabble will get creative and find a way to ruin the tank.
The idea that Israel is somehow stranded in the wilderness and hanging by a thread is myth-it is militarily vastly superior to any of its neighbors, and it always has been. Its greatest threat is that the Arabs will be smarter than their technology and weapons, not that brute force will somehow overwhelm the Israeli military machine.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 28, 2008, 11:58:51 AM
The miilitary threat is used to excuse spending on a monstrous bloated military bureaucracy - only 25% of the Defense budget is spent or training troops, arming them, or doing stuff that 'augments the national defense'. Most of those drafted are not needed for the service, but the excuse of the permanent national emergency is used to keep them there.
Of course, military discipline, values, obeying orders, etc, makes good soldiers - but bad civilians in a liberal democracy.
Of course, it'd be better if the kids entered the work force earlier or went to college. But who cares?
Nevermind the bloated authority for government in every other sphere, or the erosion of privacy.
If we can have peace with our neighbors, a lot of that can go away.
Post by: macpherson on May 31, 2008, 10:14:09 PM
How does having military discipline and values create bad civilians, in any society? Would less discipline and training make Israel more prepared for potential attacks? It might make for a stronger economy but what use is an economy if the country is under the heel of its enemies? I cannot speak to the issues of military spending, I suspect the same thing occurs in any long-standing military establishment (it certainly has in the US), but that is not reason to disarm either. It seems to me that Israel is risking much for very little concrete return. Hezbollah will have a whole range of new places to fire rockets from, Syria will claim it has severed ties with Iran and that it's fighting Hezbollah, on paper, while in reality doing very little of either. Eventually the IDF will have to move in to stop the rocket attacks, Syria will scream that Israel broke the treaty, the rocket attacks will continue from elsewhere and the UN will criticize Israel and consider sanctions. And even if all that doesn't happen (it will), you'll still have rockets and bombs coming from Gaza, or the West Bank, or the puppet state that Lebanon is becoming. I'm not an Israeli, but from my perspective it seems clear that you can give and give and give and you'll still have enemies who want to drive you into the sea.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 31, 2008, 11:45:12 PM
Quote
How does having military discipline and values create bad civilians, in any society?
In a modern 'open society', your success hinges on how well you do learn, study, achieve, and you may one day end up in a job where you work less hours for more pay. Each man in modern society in an individual.
A conscript military operates on the reverse principle. Work harder, and the army transfers you to harder duty, with (still) miniscule pay. Pretend to have a health issue, or make problems for your commander, and (after some prison time, say two weeks) you will be remanded to easier duty, or 'thrown out' of the service.
You are, of course, not an individual in the army, and they do expect obedience. A draftee army operates on the principle of 'do stuff or I punish you', as opposed to capitalism's 'do stuff and be rewarded'.
Of course, in the REAL Israeli Army, what really happen is that it's far more important to make sure you're not responsible for a failure rather than to ensure success so you have people who don't really care if their work is done well, who show up late, who are overall lazy, rude bums.
And then they go into the public service.
A conscript army, especially one on the IDF model, is a miniature exercise in socialism.
Quote
It might make for a stronger economy but what use is an economy if the country is under the heel of its enemies?
I believe you skipped my point. A huge army made sense when we were surrounded by enemies on all sides, and expecting a joint military invasion by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and every other naiton in the region all at once at any moment. That's no longer the case. The key enemy of Israel are terrorists, against whom a giant army doesn't help. There's just no longer a point of maintaining a state of emergency.
Furher, a long-term state of emergency CANNOT be maintained.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 27, 2011, 06:08:46 AM
The time for waiving the fist to demand everything is over for Israel; A better alternative is to seek democracy and personal freedoms on both sides of the Golan Heights-if the people living in the Golan and in both countries had more of a say in this, it probably would've been settled long ago.
I am rehashing this thread for the obvious reason:
This is now becoming the most prophetic post De Selby had ever made.
Post by: De Selby on March 27, 2011, 07:55:48 AM
Post by: Doggy Daddy on March 27, 2011, 04:15:57 PM
I read the title as: "Walmart warns of syrup confections."
DD
Post by: RevDisk on March 28, 2011, 01:07:22 AM
It'll be interesting to see how Arab democracy plays out. The attempts at counter-revolution are, I think, the most poisonous element currently being faced.
Na, most poisonous element is whether the average person stands up, or just stays quiet. Contrary to some uh, impressions here, most folks in any country on the planet are decent enough folks that honestly don't care about killing anyone or grand national/racial/ethnic campaigns. They want to earn enough money to be comfy and to more or less be left alone. All good things. Unfortunately, it gives people that DO really care about a particular thing a real edge, and a disproportional voice.
I've been told by Arabs that it's kinda an Arab cultural thing to keep one's head down and mouth shut about "political matters", and just go with whichever way the wind is blowing. I don't know how accurate that is. I honestly don't, but it makes some level of sense. Hopefully, the average joe takes a look at the nationalistic folks AND the religious crazies, and says "Nuts" to both.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2011, 03:11:54 AM