Must Israel give back the Golan Heights?

[Alkas]

I know, it is a rather strange and provocative topic for an U k r a i n i a n forum, but...
What do you mean?

[Phillip]

If Lebanon and Syria have the Golan heights back and the Hezbalah are no longer active or dangerous to Israel then Lebanon should no longer be occupied with the Syrian army.

My ex is Lebanese and she doesn't care if they stay or go, but I think it would be psychologically very important.

However, I find peace between Israel and the middle East a lofty concept though the Golan Heights would be a good start there.

[Alkas]

I think it would be very dangerous for Israel to give back the Golan because of limited water resourses in the country and the exploding demography. At second, Syria is ruled by Asad and he is a dictator. He is old and we don't know what comes when he dies.

[Phillip]

Hi Alkas,
Assad is known to be one of the most effective politicians the have been in the Middle East for a long while. He has gotten away with everything, I mean just imagine occupying a country all this while with not so much as a whimper from the outside.

I suppose you have a point as far who comes next - hmmm, don't have a clue... (probably a well selected relative, but they not powerfull so don't worry).

However, the point of the Golan heights was to keep a buffer zone between Israel and the Hezzbollah in Lebanon. Israel set a path of destruction through that country in 1971 all the way into Beirut (though if your Jewish you'll dissagree with me on some points there). When they left they kept the Golan heights as a buffer zone. They have kept it ever since, though with the rockets availiable nowdays such a buffer zone is no real protection (perhaps that's why they are willing to give it up). You have to remember that Israel has been in a declared state of war for along time* with all it's neigbours (*I think sinse the 6 day war in the 60's). Maybe if you look at it like this it is a chance for America to pat itself on the back and a nothing situation to Syria and Usrael, who might just score browny points - who knows...

I think your post is good - thanks. I probably like Lebanon more then Israel and I think they've had a rough trot the past 20 years. I can understand them being the way they are as they are well accostomed to being occupied by somebody-or-other over the past thousands of years.

One last point (actually on the subject), is that I was led to believe the Hezzbollah were supplied/run from Iran and Syria only let the supplies go through its terrirtories - nothing else. I don't know how this has now become a Syrian offensive, which is how it has been reported here?? If the former is the truth then how can Syria assure Israel of safety on its boarders which is the key demand (Israel has offered Syria the Golan Heights back a few times before and Syria would not talk, because they only wanted war)

Perhaps Assad has pulled of one more example of polital menouvering to use nothing to gain alot.

Good one Alk.

[Alkas]

Dear Phillip
Thank you for your support joining this topic. At first, some historical facts. The Golan Heights were not a buffer zone, they were occupated by Israel during 6-Day-War in 1967. You just confused it with 5-30 km free zone in Lebanon that was created in 1982.
Now here are different sides of peace:

If Israel give up the Golan Heights, it will have peace with all(!) its neibourghs for the first time in its modern history. It's very positive in the symbolic sence. On the other hand Israel would open the economic gates to some Arabic states such as Marocco,
Algeria, Mali not to mention Syria:-) The governments of these states agree to import Israeli high-tech products in the case of peace.
The economic situation in Syria is more than dramatic. Politically it is also difficult: The Turks blocked the North(and Syrian water
resources) and Syrian society is not homogeneous, only 11% belong to the sect of Alavitians (or Alavites?? -don't know in English). These people reign the country (Assad belongs to them too). The majority
is opressed. The establishment of relations with Israel that is more than stronger economically (don't forget Brooklyn contributions ;-))would bring the Syrians a lot.
In 1979 there was peace between Israel and Egypt. The Israelis still kept Sinai that was occupied in the war of 1967. In Yom-Kippur-War 1973 Israel was bound to terminate one of the fronts just to avoid encirclement. Then they said they would give up Sinai to conclude armistice on Egyptian front. Egypt agreed. Israel cleared Sinai in 1981 but according to that agreement it is not allowed to Egyptian forces
except frontier-guards to billet bases on Sinai. Obviously the Syrians
want the same conditions. Today's conducting negotiations promise nothing positive for Syria.

[Phillip]

I wasn't sure if the Golan heights were the same buffer zone that I spoke of, in fact I knew I was wrong. I wrongly assumed they were part of the same body of land and thus formed two purposes. It was pretty stupid of me to make my observations as I did because even with my limited knoweledge I can easily see on any map that it is a huge block of land mostly concerning with Syria.

As you can see I am mostly concerned with Lebanon and what these current events might mean to them. I think my speculations still stand as such - just speculations, but given my wooly understanding I don't mind if you don't respect my views.

Thank you for filling me in on the details. I am embarrased by my lack of knowledge and sorry to have wated your time, but as you said it is a worthwhile topic and I too want to flesh it out, even if it means I will embarass myself further.

My ex' is a very well educated woman who is gaining distinction in law, however I must conceed that her views (which I mostly speak of) are views that she as an Arab are meant to believe.

I 'had it out' with my lecturer on her behalf over Israel's involvement in the civil war. He is a world renound doctor in that subject and no doubt he knows of all things you are talking about. My argument resulted in a very angry response where he told me 'I don;t know what I am talking about' - however he gave my essay a far better mark then it deserved... My knoweledge stems from then, not now and I am shaky on my figures because it was a while ago, (for what it's worth).

So I guess what I am saying, is that it a very sensitive subject and one I am inclined to avoid.

Your knowelefdge is much appreciated and I thank you for this topic, and I fully appologise for talking crap.

Phillip