Israel cannot be reconciled with the Mafia regime of Assad. Syria will wait till the moment that it sees chances of defeating Israel. Syria cannot efford good relations with Israel. The Assad family has established a hereditary dynasty shored up by repression within, and confrontation and terror abroad. The rule of the Assads is not aimed at improving the lot of their people or forwarding a particular ideology. They changed ideology from secular Arabism to a seemingly impossible confection of pan-Arabism and Islamist extremism because it was expedient to do so. Hafez Assad came to power following a dizzying succession of coups that had made Syria the most unstable regime in the Middle East. The Assads are seated atop a bucking bronco. They are members of the Allawi religious minority who are usually not even considered to be Muslims. They rule a country of disparate minorities with a potential for chaos almost as great as that of Iraq. The radical Muslim Brotherhood is always there, threatening to take over the country by fair means or foul, and the usual Ba'th party rivalries that have plagued all such regimes are also a threat to Assad family rule. Their rule is not about improving living standards for Syria. Syrian living standards have fallen behind the none-too-glamorous ones of Jordan or Egypt. It is not about democracy, a Western luxury Syria can't afford, according to Bashar Assad. The Assad regime is about stability, and it is about money and power for the Assad family. The regime is comparable in every way to the fictional Corleone Mafia family. Prosperity and peace would ruin the Assad regime. Therefore, Western assumptions that Syrian leadership must want peace and prosperity are mistaken, and it is pointless to "engage" Syria in dialogue except insofar as it is possible to confront them with their violations and insist that they mend their ways as explained at : http://xrl.us/bjcsd

The most probable reason why Israel is not interested in talking to Syria is precisely because Syria is not firing on Israel. They are calm, so why bother? It's like there is already a peace agreement. Israel still continues to occupy (illegaly, according to international borders) the Golan, and Syria seems not to want to retake it by force. Perfect situation! Absolutely nothing is pressuring Israel to negociate, especially since, in this case, it would definitely mean returning some land to Syria. The Palestinians, however, carefully remind Israel every day (with Qassams or whatever) that they have an ongoing conflict.

I never knew that Carter had changed his name to Eshkol Nevo??

There are some people, like Mr Nevo, who just can't wait to give away territory. Anyone will do. If you can't give something to Palestinians, then give the Golan to Syria. The essential is to make as many territorial concessions as posible. We don't get peace - we get strategic vulnerability. But for Mr Nevo & others of his ilk, past failures mean nothing, consequences can be ignored, I mean, why be bothered with facts? Syria is not a "partner for peace" - they are an enemy state with whom we are at war. They are the proxy of our most dangerous enemy, Iran. Our national interest as far as Iran & Syria are concerned is to inflict a massive military defeat on both, a defeat so massive that they will not recover in 50 years. Then, we will have peace.

Ramat HaGolan is part of Israel and should never be given away. You need to pick up a history book and learn about the 25 Jewish villages and 10,000 Jews that lived in the Golan before the Romans murdered and expelled them. At that time the Golan was actually called Northern Galilee. You also need to learn that the Golan was supposed to be part of the reborn Jewish state in 1948 yet it had unfortunately been given away by the British and French to Syria just two years earlier. Then you need to learn how for the very short 21 years that the Syrians "owned" the Golan they used the Golan to fire at the Jewish kibbutzs below. Then you need to learn how Israel recaptured the Golan in 1967, defended it in 1973 and then in 1974 gave to Syria 25 kilometers of captured land. The Golan is Israels' forever!

As long as the requirement is that Israel has to give up land to have peace with the Arabs means there will never be peace. Syria has never done anything for peace. They have provided money, weapons, training and land for terrorism against us. They ain't ready for peace. Most likely never will be either

there is a world of difference between an army fighting guerrillas as in Lebanon and fighting a country like Syria or any other Arab nation in the vicinity. Why doesn't Israel hold negotiations? Because 99% of Israelis would be against giving back the Golan. It overlooks the north of Israel and the Syrians bombarded Israeli towns from it for decades. The old cliche "actions speak louder than words' rings true and Syria talks about peace but aids Israel's enemies. Mike

What are the facts? Historical Background. The Golan was always part of the Jewish homeland. The Syrian claim to the Golan is tenuous. Syria, as a political entity, did not exist at all until after the first World War. Until then it was just another province in the Ottoman empire, with ill-defined borders. In 1923, in an Anglo/French great power play, the border between Syria and Israel was established. The Golan Heights were ceded to Syria. Even before the establishment of Israel in 1948, the Syrians, having heavily fortified the area, subjected the villages in northern Israel to almost daily shellings, making normal life impossible. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Syria attacked Israel and was defeated. Israel occupied the Golan Heights and in 1981, for all practical purposes, annexed them.

u r talking about another partial solution why we donnt talk about a complete solution what the israeli state need ??? hate neighbors?? war in every border ?? rising children with seeds of hate ?? no israeli state needs what other arabian states need. living in peace of mind. so try to have a complete peace process with arabs and that's it. then u may have the time to think about your other problems like iran issue.

Look at our enemies.The leader of the Syrians has such a long neck and a flat head.An amazingly ugly human being,who would want to sit at any table with him ? Arafat had a hooked nose,hardly ever shaved and apparently had rather bad breath.It is the same story throughout the Middle East,we are unfortunate to have such ugly male enemies.Perhaps if Madonna or Miss Bahrein were put in charge of peace talks people would be queing to sit down,have coffee and make peace.Looking at the Syrian leader I had to ask myself if I would buy a second hand camel from him.Honestly now,would you ?

.............but you do not accept the no change

Palestine is, and always was, dysfunctional. And since the failed Bush-inspired coup against Hamas in Gaza, the likelihood of a unified regime strong enough to impose internal order is at least decades away. Israel does have an interest and responsibility towards the Palestinians, but not at the cost of her strategic interests. Syria, not Palestine, represents those interests. Which leaves the question Mr. Nevo raises: Syria has been signaling interest in negotiations with Israel for years, and the two countries appear to have come within meters of a comprehensive peace in 2000, when Barak for reasons still unexplained walked out of the talks to shift priorities to yet another fruitless cycle of Palestinian talks. The advantages of dealing with a relatively stable regime, a country which has demonstrated its ability to comply with bi-national agreements for four decades is obvious. Does Israel like Assad or Syria, apparently no more than they like or trust Israel and her leaders. But that is the point of negotiations, to test and shape intentions, limits and commitment. If we were already trusting friends there would be no need for negotiations! Is Syria in a similar position regarding Iran as is Israel with the US, yes. Has Syria hosted and protected Palestinian extremists and rejectionists for decades, the same organizations which directed terror against Israel, the parties that acted to disrupt any appearance of mutual accommodation between Israel and the Territories, also a big yes. Syria is, after all, an enemy state technically at war with Israel. She seeks out strategic and tactical allies also. On the other hand Bashar Assad hinted that both items are open to negotiation. And should an Israel-Syria peace be achieved both Iran and Hamas/Jihad would become both unnecessary and dangerous to Syria and to the peace. Even the question of which peace holds the most strategic value for Israel points clearly to Syria. Such a peace would result in an end to the state of belligerency between the states, and including Lebanon. In other words a Syrian peace would provide a quiet northern border allowing Israel to reduce her alert level, dramatically reduce her reserves call-ups so costly and disruptive to the economy; it would push Iran back across the Gulf, shut the land route which, in time of war, gives Iran a ground-based invasion corridor and re-supply line; remove the Palestinian rejectionists from Damascus making them easier targets within the Territories, or less dangerous in refuges more distant from Israel. Peace with Syria, if achievable, would also open the door to the Saudi peace plan, circumventing the impossible condition of peace with the politically and socially dysfunctional Palestinians. Bashar also hinted at a free-flow of trade and tourism which would give Israelis another vacation destination, reduce further the claustrophobic feeling of living in so small a country, open new markets, both within Syria/Lebanon and further afield in the Arab world. It would open the door to military cooperation between Israel and the Arabs against the common Persian threat, further normalizing relations with the Arab states. A dream, of course. Can it be given concrete form, possibly. But this is precisely the purpose of negotiation. And preconditions, despite the fact that Bush insists on them (but, then, who ever accused Bush of even understanding diplomacy?) are a non-starter. Quid pro quo is precisely what the term “negotiations” means. In exchange for this I am willing to give up that. And in the end, assuming a successful conclusion Israel emerges from behind its defensive Garrison State walls, concentrates of technology in service of trade instead of military, expands its industrial and trade base. This is precisely what Zionism and the founders of the Jewish state aimed at, and were frustrated in achieving. This is precisely the stated goal of the State of Israel since its founding in 1948.

Good point. We aren't getting anywhere with the PALs. We probably won't with Assad either, but it is worth a try, Maybe the next US president will allow it. McCain strikes me as the sort who won't try and give Israel orders. And the other two... well, we may have other issues, but preventing contacts with Syria won't be one of them!