and the Syria -Lebanese Border!

Prime Minister Olmert is quoted in the London-based Arabic language newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat as offering the Palestinians 64 percent of the West Bank, "...forget about territory west of the security fence," plus access to the holy sites of east Jerusalem, under Israeli sovereignty. Hard to forget that just 8 years ago Israel offered 96% plus sovereignty over Arab east Jerusalem. No there’s an offer to promote an agreement. And now Carter has wrestled an agreement from Hamas to accept Palestinian statehood on all pre-1967 territory and in exchange will not recognize Israel. Diplomacy certainly is on the fly! Of course neither proposal is serious nor intended to lead anywhere, just more of the same. Enter Bush en route and intent on convening a summit to promote his Annapolis deadline of Peace-in-his-time. As if Annapolis was ever a serious summit. After all, Palestine is, and has been since early mandatory days, socially and politically chaotic. And if there was little likelihood of political unity before, then the failed Bush-inspired Fateh coup against Hamas in Gaza was the death knell for any possibility of a unified Palestinian regime strong enough to impose internal order. Peace with Israel cannot precede peace within Palestine. Syria, on the other hand, has been signaling interest in peace with Israel for years, and the two countries reportedly came within a few meters of Kineret lakefront of a comprehensive treaty in 2000. Why Barak backed out of the nearly concluded agreement in favor of yet another round of fruitless talks with Arafat and the Palestinians remains a mystery. One of the main advantages to dealing with Syria over the Palestinians is that it is a country with a relatively stable regime. Unlike the Palestinians, and particularly the Hamas in Gaza, Syria accepts responsibility towards protecting its land and people. Of course Israel does not trust Assad and the Baathist regime, and the Syrians likely feel the same about Israel. But that is precisely the point of negotiations, to test and shape intentions, limits and commitment over time. If the parties already trusted one another an agreement could be achieved almost immediately and there would be no need for a drawn out period of confidence-building and negotiation! Regarding Iran, Syria has a relationship with the Islamic Republic similar to that between Israel and the United States. Regarding the Palestinian rejectionists, Syria let it be known decades ago that it would not sit by and allow Israel and the Palestinians to come to an agreement leaving Syria alone to face its far stronger adversary, Israel across the negotiating table. Which partly explains why Syria has hosted and protected the Palestinian extremists and rejectionists, allowed them to use terror to disrupt any appearance of movement towards mutual accommodation on the Palestine front. On the other hand, over the past year Bashar Assad has signaled through Israeli media that the alignment with Iran and the presence of the rejectionists are open to negotiation. And should an Israel-Syria agreement come to terms then both Iran and Hamas/Jihad would become not only unnecessary tools of persuasion over Israel, but very likely a threat to the Syrian regime. With no likelihood of serious talks with the Palestinians and Assad apparently anxious to end a conflict more expensive to Syria’s more than Israel’s economy, what should Israel do? What’s in it for Israel? 1. Peace with Syria would mean the end to the state of war between the countries and that would likely include Lebanon. This would result in a dramatic reduction in the need and frequency of military alerts and mobilizations so disruptive to the lives of Israel’s citizen-soldiers and to Israel’s economy.

2. Peace with Syria would result in Iran withdrawing from Syria/Lebanon (an obvious Israeli demand) lessening the Islamic Republic's influence and threat to the Levant, and closing the land route for invasion and re-supply in the event of war with Israel. 3. Peace with Syria would remove the Palestinian rejectionists from Damascus (another obvious Israeli demand) making them easier targets should they enter the Territories, or less influential and dangerous if relocated to refuges more distant from Israel. 4. Peace with Syria would open the door to dialogue with the Saudis, circumventing their unrealistic-because-unachievable precondition of an Israel-Palestine peace. 5. Peace with Syria, would, as signaled by Assad, provide open borders between the two countries allowing a free-flow of trade and tourism. This would provide Israelis more breathing room and expanded local vacation destinations. 6. Peace with Syria would expand and open new markets for Israeli commerce to the extended Arab world. 7. Peace with Syria would open the door to military cooperation with the Saudis and the other Peninsula Arab states against the common Persian threat, further normalizing Olmert finally realizing Syria only realistic peace option,1relations with those states and reducing the likelihood of an open confrontation with hegemonic Iran. Both official and unofficial Israeli diplomatic and intelligence sources say peace with Syria is achievable. So, was Olmert's reason for signaling an end to the fallacy of Annapolis on the eve of the arrival of President Bush intended to put the president on notice that regardless how long or intensive the discussions with the Palestinians, however much an agreement between the parties is desired by Israel or demanded by Bush, that the Annapolis roadmap is a train without wheels? Is the prime minister signaling the soon-to-arrive US president that his administration’s policies over the years are the major reason the Middle East is in tatters, that Bush policies are the cause and not the solution to the problems facing Israel? Perhaps Olmert is declaring that Israeli-Arab interests are best served by saying a polite but firm goodbye to this American president, that Israel and the Arabs are waiting out his obstructive term in office, hoping that the next US administration will be strategically more intelligent, diplomatically more adept, and more circumspect in deciding issues of war and peace.

Israel is not longing PEACE, All Israel policy to spilit Syria from Iran, neutralize temporarily Syria by some sham battles ISOLETE IRAN from rest of the troubles surrounding ISRAEL and then IMMEDIATELY BOMB IRAN. Therefore Turkish mediation IS A HISTORICAL MISTAKE, IT paves the way for Israeli bombing Iran which will initiate a very unstable conjoncture for Turkey both from Economical and Political aspects. When Israel stike Iran and solve its problem with Iran, even partially, immeidately return to Syria and other surrounding Muslim people. DO NOT MEDIEATE BETWEEN SYRIA AND ISRAEL, ISRAEL IS ENEMY OF ALL NATIONS AND ESPECIALLY TURKEY, ISRAEL TRIES TO ERECT A KURDISTAN ANNEXING IRANIAN KURDISTAN TO BARZANI

Giving the Golan to satisfy political egos is a crime. We need the Golan for a whole variaty of reasons security is just one of them it was also never supposed to go to Syria thats the result of an illigal deal done between the British & French. Also why do we allways agree to play by arab rules ... we have the land they want, we are much stronger and could defeat them in any war, we have powerfull friends friends, Syria has been shunned by both Europe, US & UN because orf its support for terror and intefearing in Lebanon. Assad says the Golan is his price Olmert gets ready to sign it over. If our politicians had any brains they would be saying we are the ones in the position to set terms your not we will agree to this compromise in the form of a token portion of the Golan but you will accept our ownership of 80% - 90% but you can have your prize take it or leave it. Why do we allways jump when the arabs mention the P word if the arabs talk about a peace process no price is to high and we do as we are told by them we dont make any effort to set the rules. Isnt it time we learned to play smart politcs instead of yes no Arabs want something LEFT WING SAY - give them whatever they want for peace RIGHT WING SAY - no I wont give it to them There is no middle ground where we do deals as long as they are REAL deals not peace in our time and those real deals involve Israel keeping territory its allways yes or no.

We learn more from the media controled by dictaitors than we learn from our own government. Were we going to have Olmert just spring it on us one day and anounce that thanks to his decision to use Turkey as a mediator with Syria he is happy to anounce that the Golan has been sold and that good mr Assad has promised us peace in our time. Olmert thinks the whole country is his private property to do what he wants with and doesnt even have to tell us what he plans to do. I dont think we have ever had such a secretive government. We are either told nothing or we are told nothings going on and that statement is later retracted and its admited something is going on but we wont be told exactly what.

pretty good ideas

How does Syria ACT toward those with which it is at "peace" such as Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, all of whom regard the Syrian border as "the gate of darkness," (to quote an Iraqi defense minister)? Those who support peace ACT LIKE THEY SUPPORT PEACE. Syria dissembles peace and has done everything possible to destroy every hope for peace. Shaaban herself is utterly repulsive. Read ANY of her Asharq columns; every single column is dedicated to the most disgusting anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli libel. Shaaban's claim that "Israel's image today is that of a child-murderer" is very typical rhetoric for this creature of evil. Of course the Asharq al-Awsat site rarely runs her columns anymore, since the Syrian-Saudi dispute over Lebanon became serious.

Syria should ask Israel for peace and offer in exchange the Golan. But of course that will not happen. So, there is no reason for Israel to be generous with the Mafia regime of Assad. 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. 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

I realize it is impossible for Israel to return the Golen Heights in a peace deal God who by the way manner is kind of a Swede forebids it only way Syria may try attempt make any real effort is through military actions even if Israel wanted to even if America gave in to world demands the Swedish God has made buildt in barriers to prevent it barriers unlike the Israel Suez Canal defenses in 1973 can not may not be broken believe me the pen does not exist that can may get the G H back to Syria so listen to me Syria this is biologicial law buildt in to us all not some politicial gimic NOT POSSIBLE N O T POSSIBLE sorry RIGHT ??? thank you... M. S.