Jump to content

Israel Doubling Golan Settlers...


udawg

Recommended Posts

1. Errr...didn't Israel WIN the Golan Heights in 1967, after it successfully defended itself from aggression of three Arab countries who lost the war in only 6 days?

Then when Israel was attacked again by Syria and Egypt in 1973 in the Yom Kippur War, Israel fought valiantly against both Egypt and Syria. Syria did not only not re-cature the Golan Heights but it almost lost Damascus to Israel. Tiny Israel managed to push Syrian forces back to within 40 miles of Damascus in approximately 3 weeks.

Syria doesn't know the meaning of peace.

As far as I am concerned, Israel can put as many settlers as it wants on land that it won fair and square from Syria. Israel needs to position enough of its own warm bodies in the Golan Heights before it goes back to the table with Syria. In fact, the only way Syria might "negotiate" peace is when it is faced with large numbers of armed Israeli settlers.

2. What peaceful steps has Syria taken lately to EARN CONCESSIONS OR TRUST from Israel?

Ever hear of the Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah? Does Al Jazeera ever mention that Happy Gang when it talks about Syria? Didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Morgan,

Israel can put as many settlers as it wants on land that it won fair and square from Syria.

Are you suggesting that land taken in conquest becomes legitimate property? A dangerous precedent, yet a timeless one. Did the coalition forces in Gulf I take away Iraq's 'legitimate' annexation of Kuwait? Does the US/UK now own Iraq? Even they are not so foolish.

I'm sure Syria has been on the US' wanted list since the time they killed a CIA station chief and left his body by the 'road to Damascus'. Still, they must serve the US in some capacity.

PS. Read 'The Samson Option' by Seymour M. Hersch. It tells why the US had to provide instant military support to Israel to avoid nuclear war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that land taken in conquest becomes legitimate property? A dangerous precedent, yet a timeless one. Did the coalition forces in Gulf I take away Iraq's 'legitimate' annexation of Kuwait? Does the US/UK now own Iraq? Even they are not so foolish.

A precedent? Hardly. Israel has every right to that land. More so because of lack of peace agreement so that it acts as buffer. That is the traditional and military right to it. More than enough for pretty much every nation on earth. However, Israel is torn between the need for this land to be used to placate the traditionalists such as those that achere to the afore mentioned though and the more realistic and modern need to give it back as a token for peace. What is holding them? Easy, peace assurances, the stuff that dictators can't give for fear of losing control in front of their own subjegated people.

.

PS. Read 'The Samson Option' by Seymour M. Hersch. It tells why the US had to provide instant military support to Israel to avoid nuclear war.

NOT SURE WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE PRESENT THREAD BUT HERE IS THE LOWDOWN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

Not sure what

'The Samson Option'
has to do with the present thread? I merely was responding to Morgans statement that Israel was 'the little guy' in those wars. They were badly losing the Yom Kippur war and only timely, massive intervention by the US saved them. But not realy, the threat of 'going nuke' mobilized US intervention, so Israel really won the war by their own actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still is the Tiny Guy Lonius. Let's say that I own a missile armed with a Nuclear Warhead. I walk into a bar and sit down and soon am set on by two real big smelly Red Necks that don't like the color of my bow tie. They push me around a whole bunch then start eating my beer nuts. What am I to do? Go home and fire my Nuke at them? Hardly.

I go home and have the neighbor's pit bull pooping on my lawn, the teenagers of the other neighbors are ripping up my shrubs and rolling the leaves up to smoke. Do I Nuke them too? Or maybe simply try to deal with it in a lesser way such as calling the Sherrif (who also hates me)?

It's obvious that Nuclear weapons in the hands of a responsible person will only be used as a last resort. Therefore they don't make much of a difference when Israel is protecting borders and such unless about to suffer extreme casualties or lose a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KK,

You make a good point about Israel being a responsible civilized democracy who can be trusted with nuclear weapons and the fact that Israel makes no bones about its nuclear capability is the only reason that it still exists.

Flea,

a) While it's true the US backed up Israel near the end of the war, the US only BELATEDLY airlifted supplies to Israel because the other Super Power of the time, the Soviet Union, was actively supporting the Arabs from the get go and had been re-supplying Arab fighters by air and by sea as early as October 9. Nixon and Kissinger actively resisted Israel's calls for munitions help until October 12 and only after the Soviet Union rebuffed the US's calls for a ceasefire.

B) You also neglect to mention the other "shadow friend" of Egypt and Syria who helped them in the planning stages of the war ie. Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia bankrolled Egypt and Syria so they could buy every weapon their little hearts desired to destroy Israel.

c) You also neglect to mention that "nine Arab states, including four non-Middle Eastern nations, actively aided the Egyptian-Syrian war effort" during the war.

Iraq transferred a squadron of Hunter jets to Egypt. During the war, an Iraqi division of some 18,000 men and several hundred tanks was deployed in the central Golan and participated in the October 16 attack against Israeli positions. Iraqi MiGs began operating over the Golan Heights as early as October 8, the third day of the war.

Besides serving as financial underwriters, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait committed men to battle. A Saudi brigade of approximately 3,000 troops was dispatched to Syria, where it participated in fighting along the approaches to Damascus.

Also, violating Paris's ban on the transfer of French-made weapons, Libya sent Mirage fighters to Egypt (from 1971-1973, Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi gave Cairo more than $1 billion in aid to rearm Egypt and to pay the Soviets for weapons delivered).

Other North African countries responded to Arab and Soviet calls to aid the front­line states. Algeria sent three aircraft squadrons of fighters and bombers, an armored brigade and 150 tanks. Approximately 1,000-2,000 Tunisian soldiers were positioned in the Nile Delta. The Sudan stationed 3,500 troops in southern Egypt, and Morocco sent three brigades to the front lines, including 2,500 men to Syria.

Lebanese radar units were used by Syrian air defense forces. Lebanon also allowed Palestinian terrorists to shell Israeli civilian settlements from its territory.

Palestinians fought on the Southern Front with the Egyptians and Kuwaitis.

But [Jordan's King]Hussein did send two of his best units — the 40th and 60th Armored Brigades — to Syria. This force took positions in the southern sector, defending the main Amman-Damascus route and attacking Israeli positions along the Kuneitra-Sassa road on October 16. Three Jordanian artillery batteries also participated in the assault, carried out by nearly 100 tanks

c) Regardless of the belated airlift of supplies by the US, the Israelis began to turn the tide of the war after they called in all their reservationists to take up arms to defend Israel.

While it's true, initially the Arabs looked like they might win due to the element of their surprise attack and because they far outnumbered the Israelis, the Israelis started pushing back the Arabs BEFORE the US airlift.

Here's how the odds were stacked against Israel initially:

The equivalent of the total forces of NATO in Europe were mobilized on Israel's borders.

On the Golan Heights, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal, fewer than 500 Israeli defenders were attacked by 80,000 Egyptians.

Source for all above mentioned facts+quotes:

Myths and Facts: the Yom Kippur War

d) Here's the reason why Israel won...because Israel fought with its wits to survive and not with gut hatred to destroy like the Arab states.

And if the UN had not intervened to call a halt to Egypt's painful embaressing military loss, Israel would now be in control of the Suez and Egyptians would be mere employees. And Syrians might be speaking Hebrew in Damascus today. [don't get in a self-righteous lather about the latter...I'm just pulling your chain...but who knows? Syrian and Egyptian fighters were pretty incompetent]

e) Regarding "fruits of war" that Israel won fair and square, which you seem to have a problem with Israel keeping...Victor Hanson's reply to you is more eloquent than anything I could come up with. Pay attention and you may have a learning experience delivered by a respected military history expert/author.

Indeed, the liberal Europeans should love Israel, whose social and cultural institutions — universities, the fine arts, concern for the “other” — so reflect its own. Gays are in the Israeli military, whose soldiers rarely salute, but usually address each other by their first names and accept a gender equity that any feminist would love. And while Arabs once may have been exterminated by Syrians, gassed in Yemen by Egypt, ethnically cleansed in Kuwait, lynched without trial in Palestine, burned alive in Saudi Arabia, inside Israel proper they vote and enjoy human rights not found elsewhere in the Arab Middle East.

When Europe frets over the “Right of Return” do they mean the over half-million Jews who were sent running for their lives from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq? Or do they ever ask why a million Arabs live freely in Israel and another 100,000 illegally have entered the “Zionist entity”? Does a European ever ask what would happen should thousands of Jews demand “A Right of Return” to Cairo?

Instead, the elite Westerner talks about “occupied lands” from which Israel has been attacked four times in the last 60 years — in a manner that Germans do not talk about an occupied West they coughed up to France or an occupied East annexed by Poland. Russia lectures about Jenin, but rarely its grab of Japanese islands. Turkey is worried about the West Bank, but not its swallowing much of Cyprus. China weighs in about Palestinian sovereignty but not the entire culture of Tibet; some British aristocrats bemoan Sharon’s supposed land grab, but not Gibraltar. All these foreign territories that were acquired through blood and iron and held on to by reasons of “national security” are somehow different matters when Jews are not involved.

Yet give Israel a population of 250 million, massive exports of oil and terrorists — and wipe away anti-Semitism — and even the Guardian or Le Monde would change its tune.

Source:

The Western Disease, Dec.30/03 Victor Davis Hanson, National Review.

f) I've read someone refer to Israel as the West's "canary in the coal mine" of Islamofacist hatred for freedom and democracy.

I would agree with that person's sentiment, whose name escapes me right now. So if for nothing more than base self-interest, I strongly believe that the West should be mindful and supportive of Israel's survival in the ME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference now lies in whether one believes that land won in war, whether in defence or on the offensive, is rightfully yours. Right wing says yes, you win it, you can keep it. Left wing says, no, land should be returned to its historical owners.

But you run into a problem here, because how were borders decided historically? By warfare, for the most part. So the left wing is essentially defaulting to historical right wing victories. Any left wing argument is weakened, because all land that anyone currently owns had to be WON at some point. So why shouldn't nations continue to win land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won by War and the trend can be terminated if the beligerent parties wish to make peace. This is a new one in the history of the World. No wonder the Arabs don't get it. As well, the more time they take trying traditional ways of trying to win back what they lost by using the same loser means the more the Right Wing in Israel feel that they should keep it. Surely this is another reason to make a definite peace effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

You are right, logical heads should prevail, but unfortunately don't. Not on the Palestinians' side, nor the Israeli's. It has been said that Israel wants the Golan not only as a buffer, but because 1/3 of their water supply comes from there.

Dear Morgan,

I do try to refer to a lot of Mr. Hanson's points of the perfidy of China, and others, and do not think that these are valid excuses for others.

Saudia Arabia was a factor in the Israeli equation, but they were very close to the US, and suffered no condemnation for their actions. It is interesting that the House of (Ibn) Saud is a tremendous friend and ally of the US, and the 'Arch-enemy' of Osama Bin Laden.

I also 'trust' Israel having nukes, it just rankles me that they will defy and deny yet still expect that trust. I do not think they would ever use it for expansionist themes, but they do not seem to rule it out, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fleabag,

If Israel needs water, then all the more reason for them to hold on to THEIR Golan territory.

And logically, as victor, Israel should hold on to every square inch of land it won until the Palestinians establish a track record for behaving in a peaceful fashion. Why should Israel give up its ace "trading" cards to reward terrorism and hate? That would be totally irrational.

It's all very nice for President Bush and Colin Powell to pontificate about a road map for peace, when they're comfortably esconced thousands of miles away in DC. I've read that Bush won't even be in the same room as Arafat and yet he expects Israel to negotiate "peace" with this same terrorist?

Even allies of the "Palestinian cause" are having second thoughts about the intentions of the Palestinians. Will they ever live peacefully?It looks like the Egyptians are poised to wash their hands of the Palestinians.

Egyptian Media trash Palestinians, Jan.01/04, WorldNetDaily

A group of Palestinians attacked Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmad Maher during his recent visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque on Israel's Temple Mount. The mob cursed the Egyptian diplomat, threw shoes at him, and called for the resumption of Jihad, or holy war, in Egypt. Maher's attackers reportedly belonged to Hizb Al-Tahrir, the "Islamist Liberation Party."

Egypt's media exploded in condemnation of the attack on their envoy, but they also went much further, many virtually condemning the Palestinian cause itself, or at least the manner in which it is being pursued. Here is a sampling of that nation's press reaction, as translated and provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI:

-You beat the man who came on your behalf, and it is Israel that takes him to the hospital for treatment.  What shame and disgrace you have cast upon yourselves and on your cause?!"

-'Betrayal' is a most used word in the Palestinian dictionary.  They used it against former [PA] Prime Minister Abu Mazen, who preferred to resign; they used it against former minister Yasser Abd Rabbo and his colleagues, who went to Geneva to agree on a peace document that would guarantee a life of dignity for the Palestinians.Had they agreed to participate in this conference, or to accept the principles of the Camp David agreement, they would not have made it possible for Israel to establish the settlements and the separation fence, and would not have needed to make all these concessions! ...

-"The contemptible attack on the Egyptian foreign minister ... causes many to ask whether the time has not come to focus on our domestic problems – many of which stem from the wars in which we participated for the sake of Palestine – instead of wasting efforts [in an attempt] to solve the problem of a people who are at odds among themselves and accuse each other, and others, of betrayal." 

-"I do not think that the Egyptian people can forget or disregard those years when its political leadership was the target of the ugliest of attacks – not only by the Arab media but also by some rulers, led by Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat... The Egyptian people will also not forget that Yasser Arafat danced with joy when the assassination of President Sadat was announced ...

-"The time has come to tell the Palestinian Authority, 'No! A thousand times no!'... No more will we turn the right cheek to take the same slap that the left cheek has taken time and again. Are these scum of the earth capable of accomplishing something for the Palestinian people? It is reasonable to assume that they, like the supporters of suicide bombings, are the first to damage the Palestinian cause, and are bringing death upon the Palestinian people

-...""I don't need to repeat what others have said, that is, that the attack was organized by the Israelis. Such an allegation is first of all nonsense, and emanates from some peoples' addiction to turning the facts upside down, and burying their heads in the sand. Those who attacked the Egyptian foreign minister ... are flesh-and-blood Palestinians, and the Israelis had nothing to do with it. ... The truth is, I don't care which faction they belong to. This attack should be [condemned] by anybody with a brain, or half a brain. What I wanted to emphasize is that this stupid behavior will have serious ramifications for the status of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and might give legitimacy to Israeli intervention and Israeli security supervision over it ...

-" Once again, we realize that the Arabs are their own worst enemy - just as the worst enemy of the Palestinian cause is the Palestinians, who have endorsed a policy of refusal and fundamentalist extremism as a way of behavior .

-"What happened to Minister Maher reminds us of the history of inter-Arab relations ... A simple calculation reveals that the number of instances of Arab-Arab aggression surpasses the number of Arab-Israeli wars ... "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dear Morgan,

It would seem that the Israeli's have no intention of being a party to creating a Palestinian State. The Israeli's want all of it. 1oo,ooo marched to protest Sharon's 'freeze' of construction in 'Yesha' and dismantling a few settler outposts. They are screaming that G-d gave them this land. They have no intentions of ceding it to Palestinians. The only peace many Israeli's want is to have Palestinians aquiesce to occupation. Once the Palestinians cease resisting, then the Israeli's can occupy in peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Column by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times today. Outlines his thoughts on the Israeli/Palestinian problem.NY Times column

In sum, Israel should withdraw from the territories, not because it is weak, but because it must remain strong; not because Israel is wrong, but because Zionism is a just cause that the occupation is undermining; not because the Arabs would warmly embrace a smaller Israel, but because a smaller Israel, in internationally recognized boundaries, will be much more defensible; not because it will eliminate Islamic or European anti-Semitism, but because it will reduce it by reducing the daily friction; not because it would mean giving into an American whim, but because nothing would strengthen America's influence in the Muslim world, help win the war of ideas and therefore better protect Israel than this.

Read the article for better explanation. It makes enough sense... assuming you think Palestine has a valid claim for existence. Even makes sense if you don't, just because it might actually help Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article. The Golan is negotiable. As a matter of fact it is part of Israel's negotiating process. However, it is the last step, not the first. it cost a lot to take - and keep. It is valuable to both sides militarily, and to Israel, it provides a speedbump to any Syrian aggression. To give it up would be tantamount to having an unguarded border with an enemy that could literally 'lob' munitions on people living in Gallilee.

SIX DAY WAR PREAMBLE

Meanwhile, Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand," he said on March 8, 1965. "We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."(3)
Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate with its neighbors. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State.(1)

The Arabs were equally adamant in their refusal to negotiate a separate settlement for the refugees. As Nasser told the United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:

    Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents.(2)

ARTICLE ON GOLAN

n Israel, the principle of returning the territory in return for peace is already established. During US-brokered peace talks in 1999-2000 former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak had offered to return most of the Golan to Syria.

But the main sticking point during the 1999 talks is also likely to bedevil any future discussions. Syria wants a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 border. This would give Damascus control of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee - Israel's main source of fresh water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...