cicerone imposter wrote:I "double" rest my case.
Good! It needs lots of rest!
Give up the Golan: a big mistake!
Staring at Syria
By Louis Rene Beres and Paul E. Vallely, Washington Times, June 19, 2007
Israel annexed the 452-square-mile Golan Heights in 1981. This was done after defeating Syrian aggression in June 1967, and after the Yom Kippur surprise attacks of October 1973. When Israeli opponents of the annexation argued that application of Israeli law did not apply sovereignty, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
Now Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seeks a "settlement" with Syria. Damascus shares with Iran a determined commitment to destroy Israel and to support assorted terrorist groups with the same goal. Mr. Olmert's position is premised on an exchange of Golan for a codified peace with Syria. He fails, however, to appreciate the strategic consequences of such territorial surrender. Nor does he acknowledge the historic importance of Ramat HaGolan in Jewish nationhood.
If Syrian President Bashar Assad were serious about peace, he would agree to crack down on Lebanon's Hezbollah and also to close down offices of the many terrorist organizations that still thrive in his country. If formal talks were reopened, Syria would be risking nothing. Israel's risks would be existential.
Before 1967, Syria routinely attacked Israeli settlement east of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). Today, an Israeli Golan withdrawal, from an area less than 1 percent of Syria's total size, could leave the northern region of Israel open to wider Syrian or even Iranian invasion through the Jordan Valley. History records that hundreds of assaults on Israeli land west of the Jordan have been launched from or through Golan. Such a withdrawal would uproot 32 Golan Jewish communities and threaten a third of Israel's water supply. As Syria is a riparian state, any Golan transfer would also damage Israel's tourism and fishing industries.
The proposed Olmert argument is based on a naive legalism. An Israel-Syria agreement would allegedly require a demilitarized Golan Heights. In reality, a Syrian demilitarization of Golan, which is roughly the size of New York City's borough of Queens, could never happen. The prime minister's incorrect reasoning lies in the limits of legal guarantees in our anarchic world. A related problem concerns ever-changing missile and satellite technologies.
For real security, the Israeli military must retain its surveillance positions on Golan, especially on Mt. Harmon. Pre-1967 warning stations do not have a clear line of sight deep into Syrian territory. Israel should not be dependent upon third parties for crucial intelligence. Even a demilitarized Golan with advanced early warning systems involving the United States would be inadequate. This was already understood shortly after the June 1967 war, when the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a report advising permanent Israeli retention of the Golan.
Ironically, Israel's border with Syria has been more quiet than that country's borders with Egypt and Jordan, states with which Israel is "at peace." Damascus still demands that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 line?-not to the international border, but all the way to the Sea of Galilee. Yet, before 1948, the lake was entirely within Mandatory Palestine.
Syria has missiles that place all of Israel within easy range of WMD warheads. Any Israeli abandonment of Golan would exacerbate this condition. It would also enlarge the prospect of war on the Lebanese front, and the influence of terrorist factions still based securely in Damascus.
Golan, which ranges up to a height of 7,300 feet, dominates the Jordan Valley as well as the Bashan Plateau. Here there are only two natural terrain bottlenecks. These choke points are defensible. With this plateau in Syrian hands, however, enemy tanks, backed up by missiles and aircraft, could potentially penetrate Israel. This would remain true even if the area were "demilitarized."
Surrender of Golan Heights would be inconsistent with Israel's overall security. Israel must properly define its northern borders accordingly. Such definition is logically prior to defense.
Israel and the United States have coincident regional interests. Both countries must now "stand up" together to a determined Syrian enemy of peace and democracy in the Middle East. It is not in Israel's or America's interest to encourage renewed Syrian aggressions, or to enlarge geographic opportunity for radical Islamist sanctuaries. By resisting any additional Israeli territorial loss on Golan, there would also be far greater safety for the citizens of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles as well as for citizens of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Could anything be more important?
Lessons from the past.
Or, "Those who are unable to learn from the mistakes of history, are condemned to repeat them."
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2768261.ece
Interesting: a liberal Jew's lament.
Counterpoint: A Liberal's Lament
by David Forman, Jerusalem Post, July 22, 2007
Having grown up in a home of diehard New Deal Democrats, with a wider family circle that included hard-core socialists and communists, and having come of age in the United States during the turbulent 1960s, every fiber in my body is filled with political and social liberalism.
Throughout the years, I have tried to maintain a universal outlook on life, no matter the winds of change that continually blow across the international arena, relentlessly testing my ideological worldview?-especially over the 35 years I have lived in Israel and, particularly, the last 10.
Since the onset of the second intifada, the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas's takeover of Gaza, the encroachment of Hizbullah, I am fighting forces within me that are edging to the political right?-all the while desperately holding on to a progressive philosophical mindset. In the deepest recesses of my being, I am finding it difficult to maintain my usual equilibrium.
I am constantly doing battle with two competing inclinations?-one to preserve my body (my physical well-being) and one to preserve my soul (my moral integrity). And, right now, the urges of my body seem to be getting the upper hand. I feel my corporeal self under siege from all sides. I ache with the historical burden of persecution knocking at my door every minute of the day, fired by forces like those that engulfed us during the Crusades?-read Hamas?-and expelled us during the Inquisition?-read Hizbullah?-and led by the warriors of anti-Semitism like Chmelnitski?-read Hassan Nasrallah?-and those who slaughtered us mercilessly like Hitler?-read Ahmadinejad.
How do I maintain a sense of justice for Palestinians whose freedoms have been compromised under Israel's 40-year occupation and continue to advocate for their human rights, when I know they are being swept up by a pan-Islamism characterized by Islamist extremism? No wonder the Israeli Left has gone underground. Many of our cherished values have gone up in smoke.
We hate the security barrier because it steals Palestinian lands, divides villages and separates families, but we sleep better knowing our children no longer play Russian roulette with their lives when they venture out in public. We deplore targeted assassinations, but when the IDF kills terrorists on their way to fire rockets into Sderot, we breathe a sigh of relief?-even if innocent Palestinians are caught in the cross fire.
Has the Right read the political map better than we have? Everything that those who opposed the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza predicted would happen has happened. Hizbullah in the north and Hamas in the south are squeezing us and, at a moment's notice, could wreak havoc upon the country. The internecine fighting in Gaza, where Palestinians killed each other with impunity, proved a harsh reality: These Muslim fanatics are out for anyone's blood that gets in the way of their ultimate goal?-spilling the last drop of Jewish blood.
So what's an Israeli liberal Jew to do?-turn to our leftist sympathizers abroad to gain some perspective and objectivity? Who are they?-the American Center for Constitutional Rights that has issued warrants for the arrest of Moshe Ya'alon and Avi Dichter for war crimes; the International Solidarity Movement or the Christian Peacemaker Teams whose Web sites are veritable wellsprings of anti-Semitic drivel?
You see why I feel besieged?-even my natural allies put me on the defensive.
We activists for decency and fair play for the other can no longer bury our heads in the sand. We must find a way to reconcile our ideological liberalism with the harsh political realities of a bellicose neighborhood and an indifferent at best, hostile at worst, world community that allows the UN Human Rights Commission to single out Israel for permanent scrutiny. (Silent complicity strikes the Jews again.) Only America has consistently stood by us.
So as not to further darken the gathering storm hovering above, we liberals will have to temper our views and moderate our behavior. Does this mean that we limit self-criticism and curtail what we say and what we do because our words and actions can supply ammunition to our detractors and to those who decry our legitimacy as a state? Does it mean that we sacrifice our moral conscience on an altar of fear? No! But, it does mean that we must carefully weigh the possible consequences of our rhetoric and activities.
It also means that we who are sympathetic to Palestinian suffering cannot become mirror images of our right-wing adversaries?-abandoning any sense of balance, thus discounting Israeli pain. More so, even as we concede Israeli offenses, we must acknowledge Palestinian violence and, more importantly, its global implications. With the radicalization of Gaza, surely to be exported to the West Bank, Palestinians are part of a growing Islamist threat to Western stability, and we stand at the forefront of its eventual onslaught.
For those of us born with a liberal spoon in our mouths, the challenge is formidable?-almost frantic. Painful memories of our history, presently reflected in the mirror of a dangerous new reality, compel us to examine and reexamine, evaluate and reevaluate our deeply held principles?-even as we resolutely cling to our ideals, steadfastly advancing a social agenda that impels Israel to be a "light unto the nations."
Advocate, That's almost a mirror reflection of what our Jewish Program Director in Israel told us. We also talked to a young Palestinian woman, and was able to hear both sides of this issue on Israel. They are both suffering, and I believe the extremists on both sides only make matters worse for everybody. I don't see any progress for decades to come.
With the proliferation of he bomb, I am very pessimistic regarding the future of the area. I would not want to live there.
The prolongued existence of a moral dilemma is a good indicator that the subject should rethink the precepts that got him into that condition. There will be no peace in Palestine until both sides in this dispute give up the idea that their security requires the destruction or abject submission of the other side. I doubt that this can be accomplished with separate states.
It is also doubtful that any solution for Palestine can be found while the fury of radical Islam (which itself was inflamed in large part by the problem of Palestine, and the European duplicity that helped create it) is a major force in the world. We now have a confrontation between parts of Islam and the West which mimic on a larger scale the conflict in Palestine. It is very difficult to imagine they can be resolved separately.
The problems in the ME and, specifically, Palestine, are mostly the fault of the vicious and self-destructive behavior of the Islamists. BTW, Israel has never sought the destruction or abject submission of the Pals. The opposite is true: Israel has always tried to help the Pals, and reach a reasonable and lasting accord with them. Any fair reading of history supports this.
Advocate wrote:The problems in the ME and, specifically, Palestine, are mostly the fault of the vicious and self-destructive behavior of the Islamists. BTW, Israel has never sought the destruction or abject submission of the Pals. The opposite is true: Israel has always tried to help the Pals, and reach a reasonable and lasting accord with them. Any fair reading of history supports this.
Odd isn't it that this benevolent Israeli attitude has so far remained hidden from view.
I wonder what would be the reaction of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to that proposition. However their reactions should be ignored, because the experience of living for over 40 years under Israeli military occupation with no political or basic rights; continually subject to the steady expropriation of their land by Israeli zealots; capricious limitation of their commerce and daily movements at Israeli checkpoints; systematic isolation of their communities through limited access roads, armed settlements and military outposts; assasinations of their leaders, often with numerous collateral deaths -- all have evidently made them unable to appreciate the sweet reason and generous humanity of their Israeli masters.
Judging not by your rhetoric, but rather by the actions of Israel, the only "reasonable and lasting accord" they desire with the Palestinians is that of a master and a slave.
It might be enlightening for you to read some of the political rhetoric of Jan Smuts and the subsequent leaders of the former South African Nationalist Party. I suspect you would be struck by the similarity of the rhetoric put forward in defense of a permanently white South Africa to that we hear even today in defense of a permanently Jewish State in the Middle East.
georgeob1 wrote:Advocate wrote:The problems in the ME and, specifically, Palestine, are mostly the fault of the vicious and self-destructive behavior of the Islamists. BTW, Israel has never sought the destruction or abject submission of the Pals. The opposite is true: Israel has always tried to help the Pals, and reach a reasonable and lasting accord with them. Any fair reading of history supports this.
Odd isn't it that this benevolent Israeli attitude has so far remained hidden from view.
I wonder what would be the reaction of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to that proposition. However their reactions should be ignored, because the experience of living for over 40 years under Israeli military occupation with no political or basic rights; continually subject to the steady expropriation of their land by Israeli zealots; capricious limitation of their commerce and daily movements at Israeli checkpoints; systematic isolation of their communities through limited access roads, armed settlements and military outposts; assasinations of their leaders, often with numerous collateral deaths -- all have evidently made them unable to appreciate the sweet reason and generous humanity of their Israeli masters.
Judging not by your rhetoric, but rather by the actions of Israel, the only "reasonable and lasting accord" they desire with the Palestinians is that of a master and a slave.
It might be enlightening for you to read some of the political rhetoric of Jan Smuts and the subsequent leaders of the former South African Nationalist Party. I suspect you would be struck by the similarity of the rhetoric put forward in defense of a permanently white South Africa to that we hear even today in defense of a permanently Jewish State in the Middle East.
Yes, shame on the Israelis. All this bad treatment of non-Israeli Palestinian Arabs just because these Arabs fired a few shots at Israelis. It's terrible discrimination. Just because the Israeli Palestinian Arabs don't shoot at Israelis, the Israelis are nicer to them. This kind of bigotry must be stopped.
ican wouldn't know one-sided bias if the whole scenario was turned around 180 degrees.
now that israel and the "moderate" middle-eastern states will be given plenty of additional u.s. supplied military equipment , they should all be very happy .
and since pakistan just fired another nuclear-warhead capable "test" missile , the peace in the middle-east and far-east must be "just around the corner" .
hbg
see also :
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2782683#2782683
George, occupations are tough. There would be none had not the Pals and neighboring countries attacked Israel lin '67. Before then, Israelis had not set foot in the WB and Gaza.
You probably know, but would not admit, that Israel employed many thousands of Pals before the suicide bombings began. Israel worked hard to reach accords with the Pals, but received bullets and bombs in return.
Advocate wrote:George, occupations are tough. There would be none had not the Pals and neighboring countries attacked Israel lin '67. Before then, Israelis had not set foot in the WB and Gaza.
The prolonged occupation was the result of Israel's own choices. The difficulties, contradictions, and dilemmas were all of Israel's making - a result of its greed for more land (but no more Palestinians).
Immediately after the end of the hostilities in 1967, Israel announced its firm intent to (1) Retain the Golan Heights; (2) Build and retain a "buffer zone" along the border with Jordan, with a series of fortified settlements and military outposts on the western heights of the Jordan Valley; and (3)extend southward the kibbutz settlements on the west bank of the river just below Lake Tiberias. This forever severed the West Bank from Jordan (and with it the Israeli fiction that somehow Jordan is the real state of the Palestinians), and led to the prolonged occupation.
Even after all this there were still in late 1967 some rational solutions available. (1) Israel could have allowed or encouraged the formation of a government in the West Bank. However this ran counter to the desires of those who wanted more time to expand Israeli settlements and land grabs and drive out the local Palestinian populations. (2) Israel could have claimed the whole territory and begun the process of integrating the population as citizens of the Israeli state. However this ran counter to the fundamental principles of Zionism, which called for a perpetual Jewish state and limited tolerance for other peoples. Neither option was pursued, and a a few years later when the Likud party took power, Israeli policy became one of deliberate maintenance of the occupation (under the guise of holding land for a peace that could never come ) while, aided by new settlers from the USSR, the pace of Israeli settlement in the West bank accelerated.
Through all of this Israel had the chutzpa to assert that it was the unruly behavior and resistance of the Palestinians that was the cause of the problem. This rationalization would prove to be accepted only where the constant barrage of Israeli propaganda had dulled the sensibilities of the population to the reality of the situation.
Advocate wrote:You probably know, but would not admit, that Israel employed many thousands of Pals before the suicide bombings began. Israel worked hard to reach accords with the Pals, but received bullets and bombs in return.
I know it and I readily admit it. Israel employed Palestinians as the hod carriers in their growing economy just as Aparteidt South Africa employed Zulu and Bantu as the labor force in their then growing economy. Masters have always found beneficial ways in which to employ their slaves. However I don't believe there is any particular virtue in that.
If Israel instead had not only employed the Palestinians in economic work, but also recognized their equal rights as human beings, then you would have a point. Instead you are merely reciting already discredited Israeli propaganda.
georgeob1 wrote:Advocate wrote:George, occupations are tough. There would be none had not the Pals and neighboring countries attacked Israel lin '67. Before then, Israelis had not set foot in the WB and Gaza.
The prolonged occupation was the result of Israel's own choices. The difficulties, contradictions, and dilemmas were all of Israel's making - a result of its greed for more land (but no more Palestinians).
Immediately after the end of the hostilities in 1967, Israel announced its firm intent to (1) Retain the Golan Heights; (2) Build and retain a "buffer zone" along the border with Jordan, with a series of fortified settlements and military outposts on the western heights of the Jordan Valley; and (3)extend southward the kibbutz settlements on the west bank of the river just below Lake Tiberias. This forever severed the West Bank from Jordan (and with it the Israeli fiction that somehow Jordan is the real state of the Palestinians), and led to the prolonged occupation.
Even after all this there were still in late 1967 some rational solutions available. (1) Israel could have allowed or encouraged the formation of a government in the West Bank. However this ran counter to the desires of those who wanted more time to expand Israeli settlements and land grabs and drive out the local Palestinian populations. (2) Israel could have claimed the whole territory and begun the process of integrating the population as citizens of the Israeli state. However this ran counter to the fundamental principles of Zionism, which called for a perpetual Jewish state and limited tolerance for other peoples. Neither option was pursued, and a a few years later when the Likud party took power, Israeli policy became one of deliberate maintenance of the occupation (under the guise of holding land for a peace that could never come ) while, aided by new settlers from the USSR, the pace of Israeli settlement in the West bank accelerated.
Through all of this Israel had the chutzpa to assert that it was the unruly behavior and resistance of the Palestinians that was the cause of the problem. This rationalization would prove to be accepted only where the constant barrage of Israeli propaganda had dulled the sensibilities of the population to the reality of the situation.
Advocate wrote:You probably know, but would not admit, that Israel employed many thousands of Pals before the suicide bombings began. Israel worked hard to reach accords with the Pals, but received bullets and bombs in return.
I know it and I readily admit it. Israel employed Palestinians as the hod carriers in their growing economy just as Aparteidt South Africa employed Zulu and Bantu as the labor force in their then growing economy. Masters have always found beneficial ways in which to employ their slaves. However I don't believe there is any particular virtue in that.
If Israel instead had not only employed the Palestinians in economic work, but also recognized their equal rights as human beings, then you would have a point. Instead you are merely reciting already discredited Israeli propaganda.
The Pals should have realized that the constant attacks on Israel since before even the formal state was created, as well as the massive attack on Israel in '67, would lead to border adjustments.
Jordan pulled out because it couldn't control the Pal bomb throwers (and others).
The Pals based in (and tolerated by) Lebanon brought about the Israeli invasion by constantly attacking Israel. Thus, Israel had a right to a buffer zone. Syria constantly attacked Israel, and made the big invasion in the '67 war. Thus, it deserved to lose the Golan.
The Pals loved to work in Israel, where they made much more money than they could at home. They worked as chefs, mechanics, etc, as well as day laborers. They were excluded because of the suicide bombers.
Advocate wrote:
The Pals should have realized that the constant attacks on Israel since before even the formal state was created, as well as the massive attack on Israel in '67, would lead to border adjustments.
Are you suggesting that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in the West Bank was justified by their attacks on Jewish settlers which occurred BEFORE the Israeli state was formed? This is a remarkable reinterpretation of history and human relations. Evidently in your world view, the initial Palestinian resistence to Jewish settlement in their lands justifies an unending series of Israeli reprisals on them. Evidently you believe Israel has a moral blank check to do whatever it wishes.
Secondly you persist in the fiction that Israel was attacked by others in 1967. As you well know the attacks and hostilities in that war were all initiated by Israel.
Advocate wrote:
The Pals loved to work in Israel, where they made much more money than they could at home. They worked as chefs, mechanics, etc, as well as day laborers. They were excluded because of the suicide bombers.
Perhaps the Egyptians once said the same about their Jewish slaves. History suggests the Jews saw the situation differently. Recent history also suggests the Palestinians regard their Israeli overlords in much the same way as the Jews then regarded their Egyptian masters.
I find it remarkable that you are persuaded by these sappy sophistries.
georgeob1 wrote: Perhaps the Egyptians once said the same about their Jewish slaves. History suggests the Jews saw the situation differently. Recent history also suggests the Palestinians regard their Israeli overlords in much the same way as the Jews then regarded their Egyptian masters.
I find it remarkable that you are persuaded by these sappy sophistries.
You're actually going to stand by that statement George?
georgeob1 wrote:
...
I find it remarkable that you are persuaded by these sappy sophistries.
I find it remarkable that you do not comprehend a threatened people's rational reactions to threats of extermination by another people. The threatened people either flee or defend themselves. If their forces are small, and they are threatened with extermination, and they refuse to flee, they damn well better attack first, before being attacked by their would be exterminators..
The Jews were threatened with extermination both before and immediately after they declared Israel an independent state in 1948 in harmony with the UN 's 1947 resoltuion recommending a two state Palestine--an Arab Palestine and a Jewish Palestine. The Arabs in non-Israeli Palestine preferred to try and remove Israel from Palestine rather than form an Arab Palestine in harmony with that UN resolution. Right up to the 1967 war, non-Israeli Arabs in Palestine continued to try and remove Israel from Palestine. In 1967, neighboring countries massed troops on Israel's border. Israel justifiably attacked first. The Israelis realized that unless they quickly succeeded in dissuading their neighbors from attacking them, they would become dead meat. Israel succeeded!
Since 1967, the Israelis have sought to trade land for peace with their Palestinian neighbors despite an unending series of attacks by these neighbors. I think the Israelis are fools to make any more such offers. In fact, I think they were fools to make any such offers in the first place. They should remove non-Israeli Palestinian Arabs from such buffer zones as
they think they require to protect themselves. As long as the Palestinian Arabs not living in Israel continue to try to remove Israel from Palestine, the Jews in Palestine should continue to expand the size of their buffer zones--even to the point that
all of Palestine contains Israel and Israeli buffer zones.
And some people don't understand the response from a group of people whose land and property are being taken away at will - without any legal rights.
Some people's myopia is a disease of the brain.
