Will this turn the Golan Heights into a DMZ? Better surveillance and Israeli strike capability can render the high ground useless, unless the Jihadis do their usual firing from civilian positions. That makes is a Syrian problem, let them deal with it. They should clear the area of civilians. Israel then must make it very clear to world press that if attacked from Golan the responsibility for such attacks are Syria's, which will call for proper retaliations against the government of Syria by both Israel and world condemnation. Then giving back Golan might work, but only if it is cleared of civilian habitation and turned into a DMZ.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 24, 2008 10:04 AM

Hasn't Olmert ever heard of "Taqiyya?"

Posted by: darcy at April 24, 2008 10:20 AM

As I understand Israel was willing to give up the Golan Heights (as well as virtually all conquered territory with the exception of East Jerusalem) immediately after the 6-Day War in exchange for peace promises, so this is not exactly a new position. Note that returning this to Syria would not make all Muslims in the area happy, as the "Palestinians" are now claiming at least part of the Heights as belonging to them....

Posted by: Karl Pov at April 24, 2008 10:23 AM

Who put Jimmy Carter in charge of Israel?

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 24, 2008 10:24 AM

Hasn't Olmert ever heard of "Taqiyya?"

Posted by: darcy at April 24, 2008 10:24 AM

Israel doesn't need a "promise of peace" from Syria. It has peace with Syria. That peace is made more likely, is helped by, the fact that Israel, and not Syria, possesses the Golan Heights. Israel is perfectly entitled to keep the Golan Heights forever, since (aside from part of the Golan being included in the original territory intended for Mandatory Palestine), because it won the Golan militarily in a war of self-defense.

The Arab governments have been allowed to believe -- by the behavior and statements of Israeli governments as well as by the behavior and statements of Western governments -- to think that they need never fear any permanent consequences from making war on Israel. It was folly to give the entire Sinai to Saint Sadat, but then what could Begin do, against the antisemitic Carter, with his vicious manipulation of the Camp David "negotiations" (Carter has not suddenly become an obvious antisemite completely wanting in sympathy for Israel's plight -- he always was, but a good many people, including so-called "supporters of Israel" -- allowed themselves not to see it, but to be blinded by their naive enthusiasm for Saint Sadat and the Camp David folly)?

It would be more than folly, but madness, ever to give up the Golan Heights. And such a surrender would trade the real peace that is kept by Israel's keeping the Golan, and kep as well by such acts of derring-do as the fantastic feat of first obtaining photographs of, and materials samples from, the North-Korean-built nuclear reactor, and then -- despite Rice's horrific opposition to such a measure -- destroying that sinister facility.

Possession of the Golan Heights increases the likelihood that Syria will not make war, for the only thing that keeps Syria from making war is fear of the consequences. Yielding the Golan Heights makes war more, not less, likely.

Darura. Google the word. Read about it. Memorize the concept. Spread it around. It means something that is not hard to understand: if circumambient states know they cannot defeat Israel, and know there will be severe consequences for attacking it, they will be less likely to do so. And that's what keeps the peace. And because of Islam -- and the Alawites, when it comes to policy outside of Syria, behave not as syncretistic doubtful Muslims, but as full-fledged Muslims -- Syria will always seek to engage in the Lesser Jihad, just as Egypt does, diplomatically and economically, after that brief flurry of pretend-end-of-hostilities that stopped just as soon as the third, and final, slice of the Sinai was foolishly handed over by the Israelis.

Posted by: Hugh at April 24, 2008 10:36 AM

Olmert may have a tough sell on this one also

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870480289&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at April 24, 2008 10:37 AM

I think Israel has a better chance at peace if they were to start taking land (starting with the land under the Al Aqsa Mosque) instead of giving it away.

Posted by: abinitioadinfinitum at April 24, 2008 10:42 AM

Peace? What do any of these people know of peace?
How long before Israel finds it necessary to take out another Syrian attempt at becoming a nuclear power? Olmerts policy of giving everything away is foolhardy. He could give up all of Israel to the 'Palestinians' and withdraw the nation into the city limits of Tel Aviv, and the city would immediately be under siege. Reminds me some of 'Lord of the Rings'...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 24, 2008 11:09 AM

.....Hizbullah's victory," Assad said.

.....retreat from the Golan," Assad said.

Victory and retreat, an interesting choice of words. Not something I readily associate with peace or a peaceful settlement.

Posted by: adobe at April 24, 2008 11:09 AM

The West has coerced Israel to sit at the table and play poker with the Arabs and with an Arab deck of cards - to continue the analogy the 'cards' that are dealt out to Israel are the Arab and Palestinian 'narrative' of history.

Israel's chips are land. They are playing for Arab chips which are chits and IOU's and truces and treaties and promises to pay.

Condi Rice et al agree. Israel MUST sit at the table and play the game. After all there can't be a poker game unless Israel plays.

This summer - game over.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 24, 2008 11:40 AM

The West has coerced Israel to sit at the table and play poker with the Arabs and with an Arab deck of cards - to continue the analogy the 'cards' that are dealt out to Israel are the Arab and Palestinian 'narrative' of history.

Israel's chips are land. They are playing for Arab chips which are chits and IOU's and truces and treaties and promises to pay.

Condi Rice et al agree. Israel MUST sit at the table and play the game. After all there can't be a poker game unless Israel plays.

This summer - game over.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at April 24, 2008 11:46 AM

When the Palestinians held their so-called "democratic elections" and Hamas won, Hamas leaders said "Hamas will continue to be Hamas." The stated goal of Hamas as declared at that time was to annihilate the Jews. They have not had a change of heart. Peace with Syria is a diversion to make the American leftists happy as well as the Palestinians who know better.

Jimmy Carter was a fool as our president and now as a self-appointed ambassador to the Middle East.

Posted by: JohnnyT at April 24, 2008 12:18 PM

Ok, then have Syria post a 'bond' backing up there agreement of peace. Ohhhh, say $1 billion or more dollars.

and have Pres Assad declare that if he can't keep up his side of the peace he is to surrender to IDF incaceration for life.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at April 24, 2008 12:39 PM

OT but important;

This is a must read. Pass it to all your dhimmi friends.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=77D37794-BF74-4BD5-9AD4-D8736FDC82BB

Posted by: Abrog8 at April 24, 2008 1:50 PM

Robert said

If Israel gives up the Golan Heights, this is what will happen:

Hey, I thought I was the only one with magical powers, with my eerie ability to predict the religious affiliation of terrorists before their identity is determined by officials.

It's good that at least Robert has the ability to forsee the future, because our government "leaders" and our "Middle East Experts" are continually surprised, baffled, bamboozled, confounded, and mystified by the actions of the jihadis. And no-one ever takes them to task for it.

Posted by: special_guest at April 24, 2008 2:25 PM

Peace with Syria would spell a military fiasco for Israel, as Syria will upgrade its arsenals under the protection of peace agreement like Egypt does – to strike later with vengeance.

Posted by: InfidelK9 at April 24, 2008 2:45 PM

This is another step towards the voluntary euthenasia of the nation of Israel.

The only policy Olmert is following is the one that leads to oblivion!

It was so peaceful the last time Syria had the Golan Heights wasn't it? All those free high explosive shells to help plough the land up.

Perhaps they will rebuild their 'peaceful' North Korean nuclear facility on the Heights and share the energy produced with their 'considerate' neighbour. Give them few microseconds to use all of it!

Posted by: James at April 24, 2008 2:47 PM

The Gordian knot of the intractable negotiations in the Levant could be cut if Israel would simply announce that the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the West Bank have all been formally annexed into the state of Israel. There will be a period of outraged activity on the part of the Islamic world, during which time the West will have to be prepared to defend Israel and otherwise deal with the fall out. But the other options, of engaging in incessant "discussions" with Palestinians who have no interest in peace short of annihilating Israel, are a pointless wast of time.

Posted by: Eastview at April 24, 2008 3:00 PM

Alaskan1000 said

Ok, then have Syria post a 'bond' backing up there agreement of peace. Ohhhh, say $1 billion or more dollars.

I like this idea ALOT. This is pure genius, especially when you compare it to what we've seen over the past decades.

The point is that Israel is forced to make real concrete concessions of land in return for empty promises that are continually broken. We should force Israel's neighbors to "ante up" in any negotiations. I would say something like, if Syria cannot keep their side of the peace, they will surrender an equal amount of land to Israel. That would put some onus on Syria to keep the peace. As it stands today, why shouldn't they make empty promise after empty promise? What's the down side for them? What's the punishment?

Answer: None.

Gazans should be given the same deal: if they cannot keep the peace, they forfeit the entire land and must be expelled, to live in peace amongst their peace-loving Muslim bretheren. Those bretheren (Egypt, Syria, etc.) must agree ahead of time to accept the Gazans (which they would happily agree to do, since they only want the poor "Palestinians" to have their homeland, and since the peace-loving "Palestinians" would be sure to keep the peace, right? right?). Either they would prove with concrete actions that they are interested in peace, or they would pay with concrete penalties for their perfidy. Or, they would prove by their refusal to "ante up" that they were never serious in the first place about peace. Either way, the pressure is put equally on both sides, instead of just on Israel.

Alaskan1000, this is the kind of breakthrough idea, in conjunction with our growing recognition of the character of the 1000 year old jihad, that could actually start to resolve the Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict. Kudos.

Posted by: special_guest at April 24, 2008 3:46 PM

special guest,
If the Muslims aren't honoring the agreements they have already made then why do you expect them to honor this one, $100 billion bond or not?

"if Syria cannot keep their side of the peace, they will surrender an equal amount of land to Israel."

That's not anteing up. They can make promises from now to doomsday. Will they keep them? If Syria can't keep their side of the peace why would you expect them to take the next step and surrender more land? You'll be back at the negotiating table within a year. You need to raise the stakes.

In a case such as this the answer should be:

If Syria cannot keep their side of the peace then these (list three) are the Syrian cities that will be demolished. THAT gives Assad a reason to care. If he doesn't care, then the Syrian people should. If they don't, then why should anyone else?

Just evacuating them (as in Gaza) isn't enough. They're still there, over the horizon. Then WE (Israel and the US) raise the stakes. If the peace isn't kept then these are the SAUDI cities that will be demolished - the M & Ms.

Posted by: PMK at April 24, 2008 4:19 PM

Giving up the Golan will certainly be a strategic liability for Israel in the event of any future hostilities with Syria. But I have a hard time believing Syria will be using the heights to "fire down on farmers below" as they did with regularity prior to 1967.

Syria has been scrupulous in avoiding DIRECT conflict with Israel on the Golan front since the Yom Kippur War in '73. The reasons for that restraint - overwhelming Israeli conventional and strategic superiority - will remain even after the Golan changes hands.

I'm not saying I support the transfer...and I certainly don't believe in Arab promises of peace. But I don't think the Syrians will use the Golan as a theater of direct aggression against Israel until that moment that there is a full-fledged general war in the region...(of course this says nothing about their use of proxies - Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ - for indirect aggression).

Posted by: Cornelius at April 24, 2008 5:22 PM

Giving up the Golan will certainly be a strategic liability for Israel in the event of any future hostilities with Syria. But I have a hard time believing Syria will be using the heights to "fire down on farmers below" as they did with regularity prior to 1967.

Syria has been scrupulous in avoiding DIRECT conflict with Israel on the Golan front since the Yom Kippur War in '73. The reasons for that restraint - overwhelming Israeli conventional and strategic superiority - will remain even after the Golan changes hands.

I'm not saying I support the transfer...and I certainly don't believe in Arab promises of peace. But I don't think the Syrians will use the Golan as a theater of direct aggression against Israel until that moment that there is a full-fledged general war in the region...(of course this says nothing about their use of proxies - Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ - for indirect aggression).

Posted by: Cornelius at April 24, 2008 5:22 PM

Giving up the Golan will certainly be a strategic liability for Israel in the event of any future hostilities with Syria. But I have a hard time believing Syria will be using the heights to "fire down on farmers below" as they did with regularity prior to 1967.

Syria has been scrupulous in avoiding DIRECT conflict with Israel on the Golan front since the Yom Kippur War in '73. The reasons for that restraint - overwhelming Israeli conventional and strategic superiority - will remain even after the Golan changes hands.

I'm not saying I support the transfer...and I certainly don't believe in Arab promises of peace. But I don't think the Syrians will use the Golan as a theater of direct aggression against Israel until that moment that there is a full-fledged general war in the region...(of course this says nothing about their use of proxies - Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ - for indirect aggression).

Posted by: Cornelius at April 24, 2008 5:23 PM

Sorry about the trips

Posted by: Cornelius at April 24, 2008 5:24 PM

PMK said

If Syria can't keep their side of the peace why would you expect them to take the next step and surrender more land?

That's where the UN comes in, to take a firm stand against Islamic treachery and to enforce the agreements that were made. Yeah, that's it, the UN, that's the ticket.

On second thought, you've got a point.

But seriously, I agree my elaboration needs work, but Alaskan1000's original point is still valid, that if Israel is making concrete concessions, then her (cough cough) "Partners for Peace" must also make concrete concessions, in whatever form, enforced by whomever, and enforced however it makes sense. Working out those details is totally possible, if the U.S. mandates it.

If we don't, and if negotiations continue in the future the way they have in the past, where nothing is asked of the Muslim neighbors, and no penalty is paid for their breaking their agreements, then we will continue to see the same results of the "Peace Process".

Posted by: special_guest at April 24, 2008 6:21 PM

The Manchurian Candidate?

Posted by: lonewolf at April 24, 2008 6:51 PM

Who's got the skills to start up the WILD DOG Website in Australia? (see Bill Warner's suggestion in Front Page link provided above) I'm always writing to newspapers, dhimmi VCs at Australian universities who spread their legs for Saudi funding --
but I'm IT illiterate. It would be great to create a band of Wild Dogs here and get cracking on the counter jihad down under. Sheikyermami? How about it?

Posted by: jewcat at April 24, 2008 7:02 PM

Cornelius,
The use of proxies like al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah should be summarily ruled out. Syria should be told that Damascus will pay for ANY use of its territory to attack Israel. The same should apply to all countries whose people knowingly harbor terrorists and whose governments support them. It's the price of sovereignty. It's long past time we stopped shielding "civilians" from the consequences of their own acts of war.

Posted by: PMK at April 24, 2008 7:33 PM

special_guest,

If Israel is making concessions for peace, they should have the right to respond when others attack them. We had a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction during the cold war. Israel should have the right to promise its adversaries they will be destroyed if Israel is attacked.

The concrete concession I would look for from these countries is PEACE. Nothing more, nothing less. If they choose war, Israel should have the right to give it back to them, in spades. It shouldn't be held back from retaliating. It shouldn't have to respond in kind. Those who choose to start the war don't always have the luxury of choosing how to fight it and how to end it. It's the risk they take by firing the first shot. If they're not prepared to fight to the death then they shouldn't fight.

Posted by: PMK at April 24, 2008 7:41 PM

Remember Hudaybiyya. Under Islamic tradition, a treaty does not exist until the other side breaches it.

Posted by: Saul Wall at April 24, 2008 10:21 PM

Sounds like Jimmy Carter has his paws in this.

Posted by: rational at April 25, 2008 1:09 AM

Israel has to start saying no and threate outright war.

They have already given Sinai,Gaza and the West Bank but still there is not peace with Arabs.

Almost every Muslim leader have already declared that even ceding the West Bank and Jerusalem to Palestinians would not lead to immediate peace with Arab countries. And even where Israel has peace, there is no normalization: common Egyptians and Jordanians hate Israel now just as much before any peace treaties where signed. Arab are the last people Israel want to be at peace with, as the flow of Saudi oil money into Israel, already considerable, will skyrocket as Saudis buy out the Holy Land. The Arabs are not a bit concernced about the Palestinians and would not embrace Zionists even if Arafat is re-buried on the Temple Mount, as he might be if the Palestinians get Jerusalem.

With peace Arabs will breed in Israel to the third of voters, join coalition with Jewish ultra-left and non-Jewish parties, and vote Jewish state out of existence, thus solving the problem of coexistence with Arabs.

The peace treaty is a fraud it won’t change the Arab behavior: they will continue supporting anti-Israeli terrorists if only to drain their countries of radicals and won’t entrust Israel to be a vizier of Muslim funds (economic cooperation). The only substantial economic feature that would come out of Israeli-Arab peace is heavy investment by Muslims in the politically sensitive Israeli real estate.

What Israel needs to do is say NO NO and NO again to every demand

Arabs, being completely indifferent to the peace process, offer Israel no concessions: Judea and Samaria must be abandoned, Jerusalem divided, and the refugees – compensated, with some of them allowed returning to Israel. That’s not really a peace plan, but an odd demand for capitulation of a victorious power to the defeated aggressors.

Israel, on the contrary, gives way continuously and receives nothing in return. Arabs did not reciprocate the evacuation of Jewish settlements from Gaza, a major step which divided Jewish nation and left a scar for decades. Rather, Arabs intensified their attacks on Israel. Superficially, that applies to Palestinian militants only, but they enjoy support of every major Muslim state: Syria (weapons), Iran (money and training), Egypt (logistics), and Saudi Arabia (money and diplomatic support).

Back in 1972, Sadat offered Israel peace with all Arabs in return for the Sinai and the Golan Heights, with no heed paid to the Palestinian state. Recently, Saudis offered Israel peace with all Arabs in return for Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. Now Israel negotiates with the Palestinians minute details of transferring them Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem without expecting reciprocal peace with Arabs countries. The terms become progressively worse.

But the real peace problem, it’s not without, it’s within Israel. Israeli Arabs form a third of Israel’s young and absolute majority in several regions. The Jewish state now abandons religiously, historically, and strategically important lands to the Palestinian state so as not to be swarmed by two million Arabs living there. Reduced to the nine-mile-wide beachside state, Israel will be swarmed by her own Arabs – who accept no peace process. It is an official policy of the PLO – indeed, a democratic maxim – that the Palestinians will breed to majority in Israel and then vote to unify it with the West Bank Palestine. Moderates among Palestinians proclaim they have no problem with Jews living in the resulting Arab state.

Time solves the insolvable problems. Communism vanished from the book of time, leftist terrorism of 1970s ran to the end, and Islamic terrorism won’t be eternal. Radical ideas do not last long as burning societies fall back into tranquility. The current levels of Palestinian terrorism are artificial, entirely propped by Beilin-Peres policies which brought the defeated PLO from Tunisia to the West Bank, enthroned it, subsidized heavily, and promoted internationally as a peace partner. So a shabby cat felt itself a lion. Palestinians support fighting Israel for two reasons: hope and hopelessness. A hope to prevail, and daily hopelessness of their lives. Both can be solved, by the overwhelming force and emigration, respectively. The Muslim Brotherhood, PLO, Hamas, in turn became political organizations; other guerrillas will follow the same road. Palestinians will always remain hostile to Israel, as Jews took over what the Palestinians think is their land. Such hostility would translate into low-level sabotage, but not a meaningful war.

The peace process lacks a historical precedent. Never did hostile states negotiated peace for decades under fire. Peace never came through negotiations, but only through one side’s defeat. America negotiated with Vietnam for decades, but Vietnam was not at war with America; North Vietnam was at war with the South – and utterly defeated it. So the peace process failed in Vietnam, like elsewhere. Peace process is a leftist fallacy, a primitive rationalist approach to immensely complex problems which in fact can be exhausted, but never solved.

Exhausting the Palestinian problem is easy, and Israel did it with success: behead the national organizations, expel their leaders, everyone of the slightest stance in Palestinian society. No great numbers are involved: ousting a few thousand top members of Fatah, Hamas, and other popular organizations would do. When Israel kept systematically expelling PLO associates in 1960-80s, everything was quiet on our Western Front. Even though the PLO tried ruling Palestine through its Department of Popular Organizations which oversaw everything down to students unions, it was nothing compared to the electrifying fact of Arafat’s presence in the West Bank.
Beilin-Peres clique brought Arafat from Tunisia to the West Bank, literally let the jinn of terrorism out of the bottle. They meant good, they meant Arafat to be their peace puppet. So they were wrong. As usual, societies pay in blood for leftists’ crumbling projects.

Obadiah Shoher

The Knesset to adopt the necessary laws which would facilitate relocation of Arabs to Jordan, annexing the core Jewish territories, and retaliating in full force against Israel's enemies.

Posted by: InfidelK9 at April 25, 2008 1:38 AM

The more stupid and irrational it is, the more likely Olmert is to do it.

I have been to the Golan.
On a clear day one can see across Israel to the Mediterranean Sea.

Posted by: M.O.T. at April 25, 2008 5:06 AM

PMK,

Agreed. I've written more than once on these pages that the only way Israel can avoid another rocket war with Hezbollah is to openly declare that an attack by Hezbollah on Israel will be considered an attack by Syria on Israel, which will be met with the full force of the IDF.

Hezbollah would be perfectly willing to sacrifice Lebanon in a war with Israel...but Syria can be deterred with the threat of its own destruction...and thereby be compelled to keep Hezbollah on a short leash.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 25, 2008 6:28 AM

Death by a thousand cuts.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 25, 2008 9:19 AM

PMK,

Agreed, on all points.

Posted by: Eastview at April 26, 2008 2:49 AM