Hosni Mubarak participated in Yitzhak Rabin funeral because former Prime Minister Menachem Begin attended Sadat funeral despite the risks.

What an excellent analysis. Peace papers are like Peace Pipes, their better if they smoked

Guy, You're totally correct. If this is war with Syria, it's the calmest war I've ever seen. We maintain a peaceful coexistence on each side of our border. What more do we need from Syria, other than to isolate Iran which Iran is doing well enough on its own without international pressure. The de-facto peace treaty gives Israel everything it needs, including the Golan Heights. We told the Golani residents to settle the land after the 6 War, and we finally annexed the terrority in the early 80's. Where will these pople live? It's horrible enough that we already kicked residents out of their homes in Gush Katif after we encouraged settlements for decades. How does one give back land it has annexed anyway? We, the voters in Israel should have the final say on land concessions. Remember: to the victor goes the spoils. We won the land out right against Arab agressors. It's ours forever. Why give away land for peace, when it seems you already have it?

It is very seldom that I comment on analysis such as this piece. Where a writer uses insight that goes beyond the lame thinking of most other commentators, I make an exception.

Peace with Syria is a document to hang on the wall in Olmerts office nothing more. Jews are currenlty the largest ethnic group in the Golan and most the time live in peace with their druze naighbors, The native Druze themselves will also be affected for the worst should Assad decide to for politicly motivated reasons decide to flood the Golan with arabs and of course they would loose all the freedoms they currently get while Israel runs the show. The Golan provides Israel with strategic high ground even in a day of missles and fighter jets high ground still makes a difference. Israel earns millions every year through Golan products & toursim that income would be lost. We need to rehouse all the jewish refugees & still nearly 3 years later we havnt found permanent housing for 8000 Gazan refugees and in the Golan we are talking 18,000. How are we going to find jobs for all these people, you can build new houses but you cant pull jobs out of thin air and the unemployed are going to be claiming welfare. So economicly we will loose the revenue, have to find homes for all the jews and compensate them financialy, try find jobs for them all and it will probably cost the millitary billions relocating bases & early warning systems. Even with financial help from the US Israeli taxpayers are going to be financing Olmerts unnecacry peace treaty for the next decade or more. Syria is brought right up to the Israeli water sources & we may even find ourselves sharing water from the Kineret with Syria. Syria is in Irans back pocket & if the terrorists refuse to stop attacks which will now be deeper into Israel than ever then does anybody really bleive Assad would risk his regime by trying to stop the heroic martyrs for the sake of Israels security. He would make a few token efforts say he is doing the best he can but we must understand he cant stop it all. If this deal would be anything like the one done with Egypt & Jordan it will involve Syria getting billions of dollars in anual US millitary aid giviing Syria not only the Golan but the same American weapons Israel has so if war breaks out in future Syria will have the same American toys as Israel, strategic high ground and an army of terrorists. The only winners in Israel are going to be Olmert who can get his name in the history books which will satisfy his ego and the far left who dont live in the real world. We have never had a formal peace treaty with Syria but since the height of the cold war when the mighty Soviet Union was running things today Syria is a nothing.

Syria currently shelters terror organizations and helps deliver arms to hezballa. This will end in a peace agrement. That is HUGE

Sometimes, world views matter. This will go a long way towards showing the rest of the world that Israel is not greedy and intolerant. It's not just the terrorists who struggle with Israel's behavior anymore.

Bechor understands the arab world and mentality. I'm glad he has his own site to help enlighten us all. Kol hakavod Guy I read your site nearly everyday. Israel needs your input and insight very badly. I agree with you totally on the Golan issue and that we already have the closest thing to peace with and arab country with Syria. We can't feel safe in Jordan or Egypt, so why give up the Golan and not be able to feel safe in Syria. It's all a big show anyway with the arabs. They'll hate us forever, whatever we do.

What the world thinks about Israel isnt the important issue here this isnt a popularity contest its about whats good for Israel. The world thinking we are nice guys wont give us all the benefits that the Golan does. Keeping the Golan but Israel looking like the bad guy thats going to be alot better for Israel than giving it up for image is. We dont need a formal treaty with syria we have an informal peace deal allready its possibly the most stable of all our borders and Syria is the enemy that fears us the most. Assad might like to make threats now and again as he attempts to get the position of respect his father had in the arab world but he is not stupid enough to get into a war with Israel because he knows that Syria will loose and be humiliated they result would probably end in his being overthrown because the people will blame him for the humiliation. Israel is in a better position with the Golan than without and there is no rule that says that the only way to have formal treaty with Syria is at the expense of the Golan. If Israel learned to make use of the fact that it held all the cards it would be in a position make the rules not simply accept what Syria wants.

what has changed in syria since the time of the maccabees?their agreement is still worthless--just remain stronger than them and the peace israel has enjoyed since 1973 will last longer than any treaty!

G-D may allow a closer Syrian presence which would tempt them beyond the ability to say "no" to attacking Israel.At that point, the severity of the danger to Israel would justify eliminating Damascus,just as it says in Isaiah. I am not trying to justify the likes of Olmert or his motivations,only that in the end,G-D still has his plans for Israel.HE has already told us many of the final results to expect. It is the steps leading to the conclusions that many times remain obscure.

Its proven that Palestinians are hard to eleminate ,regardless of how crual and savage you may be.These people are willing to evolve and surpass your expectation in both bravery and determination.History is not running in your favour. If you don't grasp the moment ,the current will take you back to where you came from.

not worth giving up the strategic high ground of the Golan heights for a piece of paper. The situation there is already quiet and stable. Why destabilize it with a meaningless peace treaty and a change of position when you already have defacto peace there to begin with?

I realize Israel has a unwritten peace treaty with Syria that is even better than the written one 1 with Egypt right ??? thank you... M. S.

Mr. Bechor, You have written a remarkable analysis. Israel already has some sort of peace, but peace nonetheless, on the Northern border with Syria. Mr. Olmert should keep it this way. Why should Mr. Olmert try to change the present status-quo -- for the bad. BY having a peace treaty with Syria -- another battle arena will be opened. I am sure Israelis are NOT waiting for that. BTW the talkback of Zionist Forever #7 is a nice addition to your clear-cut article.

The argument of why Israel doesn't need peace with Syria is brilliant. The flip side that actually having peace would be bad for Israel is not. And the latter argument doesn't follow automatically from the former. I don't understand why peace means "the stability will end, and the quiet will end. " And also why can't Syria "immediately dispatch a million Syrians to settle the area" just beyond the Golan right now and foster a "resistance movement" there now? Finally, as to the "minority regime" being toppled - that's what people used to say of Egypt in 1978 -didn't happen! With Israel's nuclear deterrent and far superior military forces the Golan serves absolutely no strategic military purpose (nor civilian one. Even water supplies - Israel is the world's largest desalinator of water).

Big difference between peace and truce, Israel needs Peace: One is tactical and informal, the strategic. In what way strategic, and what benefits would peace with Syria provide the Jewish state? Not necessarily in order of priority they are: 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 Saudi’s, 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 relations with those states and reducing the likelihood of an open confrontation with hegemonic Iran.

Forget, conditioning withdrawal from the Golan on Syria cutting ties with Iran, Hezbolla and Hamas? Any if they can't honor the non-proliferation treaty that they signed would good is their signature anywhere else? Syria wants Israel to go back to the '49 border, give them water rights from the Kinereret, take back all the Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria and cease being a Jewish State. We are better off with the status quo.

You write :"The Arab land ". WHERE is it written that Israel is Arab land ?! NOWHERE it is written that Israel is Arab land -- there doesn't exist EVEN a shred of evidence. You write :".., the current will take you back to where you came from ". Gadees, the current DID take the Israelis back to the place they came from, namely Israel. You should have written 'the current HAS taken you back to where you came from'. Gadees, you have not understood history properly. IT is a pity.

Those who can understand will understand ; those who can't -- too bad for them. One reason you are unable to understand : your feet are strongly entrenched in the boots of the 'other' party. I must say you are really confused.

Author wrote "...quiet with Israel is a supreme interest for Damascus. " If that's true, then what in the world were they building a secret plutonium plant for?

Your points 1. and 2. states just the opposite of what Mr. Bechor said in his article. Regarding point 4. you state that the Saudis have an unrealistic /unachievable precondition of Israel-Palestine peace. IF this is already the mind-set of the Saudis -- who says the ceding of Golan will change their, i.e. the Saudis, mind-set. Regarding 5. and 6. : Israel already has a Peace-Treaty with Egypt -- but we don't see much of a flow of trade with Egypt, nor an opening up of new markets in Egypt for Israeli goods. And the tourism is one-sided -- only the Israelis visit Egypt. BTW it appears to me you like to cede Golan in order to have more tourist destinations -- which is NOT a sound argument for ceding Golan. Regarding point 7.: IF the Saudis and Gulf States would like to have military cooperation with Israel -- they can have it right away. They, i.e. the Saudis and Gulf States, want military cooperation with Israel -- so they, i.e. Saudis and Gulf States, SHOULD come forward. There is NO reason AT ALL for Israel to cede the Golan Heights -- in order to accomplish your above points. I think the article of Mr. Bechor is much stronger then your TB at hand, which tends, at times, to wishful thinking.

I always try to find a precedent in history. 1000 years ago, the Anatolian Plateau of Asia Minor (essentially a macroscopic version of the Golan) was the heartland of the Byzantine Empire, and the cities of the coast were primarily Greek speaking. The defeat of the Byzantines at the hands of the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 paved the way for the mass settlement of the Anatolian plateau by the Muslim Seljuks, who proceeded to set up sultanates, such as at Konya. Greeks continued to live in the low lying coastal areas. Over time, the Byzantine Emperors reached accomodations and made concessions to the Seljuks, such as access to summer and winter grazing lands to support the lifestyle of the nomadic Turkomen. However, this only bought time, as Turks continued to expand their Anatolian realms at Byzantine expense. Then, when the Byzantines fell victims to the Crusaders who sacked Constantinople in 1204 and invaded Greece, the Seljuks took advantage of the situation and started attacking the Byzantine coastal areas of Anatolia, starting with Antalya. In the early 14th century, the Seljuk Turkish Sultanate of Rum was replaced by the Karaman Turks, and one Osman, a noble from this Sultanate, became precursor to the Ottoman Empire. The Byzantines became severely weakened by wars to reclaim Greece from the Latins, and from internal strife, and were reduced to vassals of the Ottoman Empire. With the Ottomans poised to capture Constantinople in 1371, Byzantine Emperor John V travelled to Rome to appeal directly to the Pope for assistance, and even converted to Roman Catholicism in St. Peter's Basilica, but received no help. He was forced to buy time with the Ottomans, providing troops and money in exchange for security. By 1389, the Byzantines controlled only Constantinope and a couple of points on the Greek coast. The Ottomans were already controlling large areas in the Balkans. The final assult on Constantinople came in 1453. Despite a union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Byzantines received no aid from the Pope or Western Europe. Constantinople, the "New Jerusalem" of Christian Orthodoxy, fell to Islam. By contrast to Israel, modern Turkey has understood the lessons of history and, naturally, is not deceived into making a deadly compromise for the illusion of peace. Syria has long regarded the Hatay region (Antioch, Iskandarun; by far the most valuable piece of coastal real estate in the Middle East), as occupied by Turkey. But Turkey stuck to its guns, warned Syria to end its support for PKK or else, and now Syria and Turkey are close friends. Israeli government (not people) is prepared to give up a tranquil, barren, strategic plateau in exchange for a piece of paper and illusory Western promises of support. The only thing they will get is Syrian access to the Sea of Galilee, impending doom hanging over the heads of the residents of low-lying Upper Galilee, and more Israeli concessions in the West Bank to buy time (Jenin ain't a long way from Golan). Only one thing will be guaranteed in this scenario: Precision guided rockets and fancy high-tech gadgets and American monetary gifts will not afford Israel the security that was provided by the strategic land they had signed away. DO NOT BE FOOLED.

except Israel is getting fleeced, and it won't be receiveing rack-and-pinion steering and antilock brakes in return. "Peace with Syria would mean the end to the state of war between the countries and that would likely include Lebanon." It will not end Syria's ambitions in and claims to Lebanon, the domination of which is one of its raisons-d'etre. Bush Senior gave Syria the droit-de-senieur in Lebanon as a reward for its help in the Gulf War. Methinks Syria may have a similar list of rewards for its "generosity" in recognizing Israel. "Peace with Syria would remove the Palestinian rejectionists from Damascus" Not in their physical removal, unless Israel agrees to take them in. Otherwise, the only thing they will get from Damascus is a pair of jeans and a striped shirt and a phone call from the Ministry of the Interior saying, "Remember, Khaled, you are a civilian now. Keep it down. No parades. No press conferences." "Peace with Syria, would, as signaled by Assad, provide open borders between the two countries allowing a free-flow of trade and tourism." Now that is a treat! A few well-to-do Tel Avivniks would forego their weekly outing to the sushi bar, and instead go for a weekend hummus-eating excursion to Damascus. The rest of the "Israeli tourists" would consist of Azmi Bishara, Jr. and Ahmed Tibi, Jr. and the other shabab. The only other thing that would be "free flowing" from Israel to Syria will be water in long pipes from the Sea of Galilee and from desalination plants. Whatever is "free-flowing" from Syria is more likely to be below ground, and end up in the hands of Israel's other regional admirers, whose "interests" Syria has sworn to uphold over those of Israel. "Peace with Syria would result in Iran withdrawing from Syria/Lebanon" It is irrelevant where Mahmoud Q. Revolutionary-Guard happens to be at a particular place and time. The seed of the Iranian Islamic Revolution has been long ago planted among the Shiites of Lebanon, and has since flowered into a home-based jungle, known as Hizbullah. Lebanese Shi'ite clerics now preach in Syrian Alawite mosques, further breaking down any barriers that may have existed between the ruling Alawites and the rest of the Shi'ite world. "Peace with Syria would open the door to military cooperation with the Saudis and the other Peninsula Arab states against the common Persian threat" That is a reassuring thought, except it is Israel, not the Saudis, that the Iranian mullahs and trained monkey believe must be wiped away, and I suspect this is not a thought that interferes with the sleep of the Emirs, Sheikhs, and Kings in Arabia, whether Israel leaves the Golan or not. Yesterday, Israel and Persia were allied against the common Arab threat, and it is that marvellous gift that the Arabs gave to Persia that caused this alliance to be reversed in one fell swoop. But no one knows what tomorrow holds.

"why can't Syria "immediately dispatch a million Syrians to settle the area" just beyond the Golan right now and foster a "resistance movement" there now?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Golan_heights_rel89B.jpg Israel does not control all the Golan. There is in fact a part of the Golan which is under Syrian rule, and Syria has said it would to set up villages there and launch a "guerilla movement" from there. However, with Israel commanding the high ground over the Hauran and its early warning stations on the Hermon slopes, I believe it has been made very clear through those famous "back channels" that a ripple on the Golan could quickly turn into a tsunami in Damascus. On the other hand, without the Golan, Israelis will not only be looking up at an escarpment, they will be forced to demilitarize their own side of the border as part of the peace deal. And with renewed Syrian control of Golan, a free-flowing "exchange of ideas", among other things, between the newly settled Syrian residents and neighboring southern Lebanon will take place (who do you think Syria will send to live there, the intellegentsia, urban elites, and regime loyalists?) "Finally, as to the "minority regime" being toppled - that's what people used to say of Egypt in 1978 -didn't happen! " Egypt is not ruled by a minority regime, however undemocratic and high-handed. Syria is. But no matter. With the tender exhortations of Condi and the EU-crats for "democratic reform", the disappearance of any Arab regime that puts brakes on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism will occur that much quicker.

While others need to be given land and other perks in order to assure their survival. Some Baathist irridentist regimes needed to be changed because it was believed they were illegally stockpiling WMD's, yet afterwards none were found. Others were working on a nuclear program in defiance of their signed commitments to the NPT, and now should be rewarded with land and other perks to assure their survival. Are there any believers in this line of logic? There is one sitting in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office. The others failed the entrance exam to the loony bin.

Syria is at war with Israel by its proxies: Hamas and Hizballah. The best way to prevent them from supporting Israel's ennemies is not to make "deal" with them but to deter them from supporting terror organizations. Israel has all the necessary tools to deter Assad terror.