Land for Peace is finished. If Syria wants peace so bad, let them renounce claims to the Golan & then we can talk.

Anything that man says has to be suspect, because he certainly is no friend of Israel.

If Syria wants peace, as it claims, it should also be willing to make land concessions. In all of history, the side who lost the war was the side who made land concessions for peace. This was doubly true if the losing country has initiated the war. This is the case with Syria, both in 1967 and in 1973. Based on all historical precedent, Syria is the one who should be giving up land for peace.

At this time,I don't think Assad can be trusted,Syria along with Iran is causing a lot of trouble in the middle east. Do I think Israel should talk to Assad in the future,you bet I do,but Israel should not just run into it. Syria and Assad should show proof they want peace and stop feeding terrorist in this area.

Syria doesn't have to give up anything. They shouldn't have to. Why on Earth would a country give up its own land? The whole idea of peace is that the Arabs would get their occupied land back from Israel. That is what is meant by Land for Peace. It's bad enough what happened and is happening to Palestine (or what's left of it)...

Only those screaming at Israel to go to wars with no end and perpetuate constant hostilities are our friends. Of course they are usually either (a) comfortably ensconced in their armchairs halfway across the world away from Israel, and/or (b) too old or otherwise incompetent to do any of the fighting themselves. But that doesn't matter. You're so clever it's just overwhelming.

Whatever James Baker says, Israel should do just the opposite. This man is delusional. I'd take direction from Ali G before I'd listen to Baker - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbNLkNhy1M

lack of understanding of historical precedence. There has been no time when a country that has been attacked in a war gave back any land won in a defensive war. Your idea is preposterous and with out merit. End of the story.

Baker's plan: "Get Syria to get Hamas to get Jihad to get a 'previously unnamed group' to get Israel to jump into the sea."

http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/209032

According to international law, specifically the principle of "ex iniuria non oritur ius", an aggressor [state] is not allowed to benefit from the fruits of its aggression. This is discussed in many places and there are many examples of this principle. One such is Belgium which contains part of Germany because of German aggression in WWI. Uniquely the Arabs always want to be restored automatically to the "status quo ante bellum" after their aggression is defeated in battle, which is not allowed according to international law. Based on the wordchoice of your post, I understand that you see Israel to be the aggressor. However, this is undisputedly false in relation to Syria. Syria was the aggressor in 48, 67, and 73. Since then, there has been no direct state-to-state military confrontation. As such, Syria is the one who needs to give up land and CERTAINLY has no rights to receive any more. Furthermore, there is no comparison to be made, as you did, between Palestinians and Syrians, as Syria was an existing national entity, who, as a matter of overt national policy, attacked Israel time and again. Additionally, there are no Syrians claiming either 'oppression' or vying for Syrian nationality in the Golan Heights.

Jews should never ever trust Mr. Baker. He is bad news and is known for making antisemitic slurs. It would be "suicide" for Israel to talk to Hamas. However talking to Syria may be positive.

...but unfortunately is about 60 years behind the times. Ius ad bello today (and from the days of the War of Independence and Six-Day War) mandates that territory cannot be acquired through conquest (whether as the aggressor or defendant). The Golan, therefore, is not Israeli, and neither is any part of the sh'takhim.

FYI, jus ad bellum are a set of criteria that are consulted BEFORE engaging in war, in order to determine whether entering into war is justifiable, so it's not applicable to your post. Regardless of the vocab, regarding laws of war today, please provide a citation, since books have been published post-67 and 73 by accredited professors that would disagree with you (see Prof. Julius Stone, as merely one example). Also note that I didn't DEMAND the land, I was refuting the claim of #6 to extra land to Syria, and pointing out that the situation can be analyzed in Israel's favor. There is a historical and legal precedent for Syria giving the land to Israel (even you concede this). As such, there is no need for land-for-peace concessions to be unidirectional towards Israeli concessions. At the very least, giving Golan to Israel could be a good faith gesture by the Syrians. Given their behavior in the past (not justified by jus ad bellum), they kind of owe one.

what are you to do?you are a thorn in the side of the whole world. why?what haave you done??you formed your nation as it is now in a hornets nest. have you not given a piece for peace? you have made this piece of land too bountiful for your own good? it seems like everyone wants a piece of you ,and all you want is peace. and because of your nature you will eventually give them another . but willthey give you yours?

Baker has tried so many ways to destroy Israel so now he has a new idea. The only thing we can trust him with is that he will find new and more innovative ways.