Will Syria Give up the Golan as it Gave up Alexandretta?

[GiladS]

Will Syria eventually accept Israel’s ownership of the Golan Heights?

Syria hasn't been able to change the power balance with Israel. Though it is developing ballistic missile capabilities and has (together with Iran) been supporting proxies such as Hizbollah and Hamas. None of these can trully ensure bringing Israel to submit to the demand of giving up the Golan Heights.

Declining oil and water reserves are also weakening the economy of the country.

The recent warming up of Turko-Syrian relations reminded me that for many years the two countries were split over the Alexandretta province which is located in southern Turkey.
Syria had claimed ownership of this territory though it was allocated to Turkey due to French colonial policies.

I am aware that the Golan Heights is much more at the heart of Syrian nationalism and is a constant reminder of the two defeats Israel had incurred on Syria in 1967 and 1973.
Also Assad's totalitarian regime will always need Israel and it's hold on the Golan as a source of support from the masses.

But still, even if we might have to wait untill Assad is gone, we could still see a change in Syrian policy regarding this territory.

[IDF_TANKER]

Two things:

First, I agree with you, the Golan heights is a matter of the national psychological closure - they need it, as the Egyptians needed Sinai, to finally leave humiliating memory of 1967 and 1973 behind (although, AFAIK, 1973 is considered a victory in Syria too).

Second, I don't know what historical context of Alexandretta, as far as international community was concerned, but, obviously, one of the things fueling their motivation is the international community consensus, that Golan belong to Syria.

I thing something very dramatic has to happen, something which will eliminate at least one of these factors, so Syrians will abandon his idea. My 0.02$.

[budgie]

Two things:

First, I agree with you, the Golan heights is a matter of the national psychological closure - they need it, as the Egyptians needed Sinai, to finally leave humiliating memory of 1967 and 1973 behind (although, AFAIK, 1973 is considered a victory in Syria too).

Second, I don't know what historical context of Alexandretta, as far as international community was concerned, but, obviously, one of the things fueling their motivation is the international community consensus, that Golan belong to Syria.

I thing something very dramatic has to happen, something which will eliminate at least one of these factors, so Syrians will abandon his idea. My 0.02$.


That and what Gilad said: Golan is a great sore point for stirring up the people.


I am aware that the Golan Heights is much more at the heart of Syrian nationalism and is a constant reminder of the two defeats Israel had incurred on Syria in 1967 and 1973.

Also Assad's totalitarian regime will always need Israel and it's hold on the Golan as a source of support from the masses.

[saladin]

The difference between Golan and Hatay is, Golan Heights is an official Syrian land, under Israel occupation, whereas Hatay joined Turkey after an official referendum in the province. It never was a Syrian land.

[GilBates]

The difference between Golan and Hatay is, Golan Heights is an official Syrian land, under Israel occupation, whereas Hatay joined Turkey after an official referendum in the province. It never was a Syrian land.

I think most Syrians would beg to differ on the latter... in particular because they wanted it so much that they had it on maps for dozens of years and they hosted abdullah ocalan AND avoided cooperation with neighbouring countries regarding their kurdish minority.

[Latre]

I think most Syrians would beg to differ on the latter... in particular because they wanted it so much that they had it on maps for dozens of years and they hosted abdullah ocalan AND avoided cooperation with neighbouring countries regarding their kurdish minority.

Actually they still have it in their maps. I was travelling there this summer and it took me a while to realize what was wrong with the picture. Still, locals said that it isn't really part of Syria, whereas Golan is.

[Massiv]

Of course Syria wasan't able to change the balance of power, Israel is supported by the USA..
Syria won't give up the Golan Heights, it's a matter of national borders.

[IDF_TANKER]

Of course Syria wasan't able to change the balance of power, Israel is supported by the USA..
Since 1967 Syria had Soviet support for more than 20 years.


Syria won't give up the Golan Heights, it's a matter of national borders.
Well, you can say that about every territorial dispute, can't you?

[LuKaZz]

I doubt things will change in Syria, Assad is still young and I doubt he will be ousted, the situation could remain the same for the next fifty years.

[Massiv]

Since 1967 Syria had Soviet support for more than 20 years.


Well, you can say that about every territorial dispute, can't you?

You can't compare the support of Soviets with the American support...
And about the disputed territories that depends the history of that land, and of who was that land...

[IDF_TANKER]

You can't compare the support of Soviets with the American support...

Oh yes, I can. Not to mention, that between 1967 and 1973 there wasn't much of American support. If you feel like proving the opposite, you can go to the Yom Kippur war thread, it was discussed at length there.


And about the disputed territories that depends the history of that land, and of who was that land...
Well, the history is that Golan Heights have been part of Israel now for twice the time they were part of Syria.

[Latre]

I doubt things will change in Syria, Assad is still young and I doubt he will be ousted, the situation could remain the same for the next fifty years.

Assad still seems somewhat more pragmatic than his father was. And leaders can always make complete policy-changes, just think of late king of Jordan, Hussein. He fought a war against Israel, another against PLO and refused to side against Saddam in the first Gulf war. And still when he managed to build quite a stable country and make peace with Israel which without doubt benefits both countries. So in theory Syria and Israel could easily make peace, let's say Israel giving Golan back (like it did with Egypt) and in return Syria will stop aiding Hezbollah and co. But of course real life is quite another thing...

[Latre]

Well, the history is that Golan Heights have been part of Israel now for twice the time they were part of Syria.

And Jews have been under other countries lot longer than they have had an own country. That kind of logic simply doesn't work. Just out of curiosity, do people in Israel think golan heights are part of the country in a same way Tel Aviv is, or just something you happened to get and what can be traded off if needed?

[IDF_TANKER]

Assad still seems somewhat more pragmatic than his father was. And leaders can always make complete policy-changes, just think of late king of Jordan, Hussein. He fought a war against Israel, another against PLO and refused to side against Saddam in the first Gulf war. And still when he managed to build quite a stable country and make peace with Israel which without doubt benefits both countries. So in theory Syria and Israel could easily make peace, let's say Israel giving Golan back (like it did with Egypt) and in return Syria will stop aiding Hezbollah and co. But of course real life is quite another thing...

Peace with Jordan didn't require any of the parties to pay a heavy prise for it, so did the peace with Egypt. If Golan heights was piece of plain desert separating both countries, as it was Sinai, the things were much easier. However, Golan Heights have a crucial strategic values for Israel, here's a good piece about it:



The Golan Heights- remain a vital strategic asset for Israel
By David Eshel

Only a number of days after the UN passed a resolution calling Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem illegal, former US secretary of state James Baker demands Israel leave the Golan Heights. It appears, from the report, that the Golan Heights are being used by the Iraq Study Group as an inducement to obtain cooperative Syrian behavior on Iraq. As predicted, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk a-Shara immediately expressed his country’s willingness to enter into peace negotiations with Israel, stating such a move is welcome. A-Shara stated Damascus is willing to reach an agreement with Israel with the understanding the Golan Heights must be returned to Syria to the last centimeter, as part of such an agreement. For Israel, such a move would spell strategic disaster. This assessment will deal ONLY with the military aspects of the Golan question, raised by the Baker-Hamilton report and intentionally ignore all political considerations pertaining to this critical issue.


The Geostrategic Status of the Golan Heights

Above the Sea of Galilee rises n escarpment, its height ranging from 800 to 100 meters altitude known as the Golan Heights, towering over the Jordan rift valley to its west. It covers a total area of some 900 square kilometers. These ancient hills were created by volcanic activity, pouring out from craters, covering the high plateau with layers of basalt, making cross-country movement difficult. The highest point is Mount Hermon, a multi-peaked mountain rising to 2814 meters at its peak, which dominates observation over the entire region up to the Damascus Basin to the east- only some 60 kilometers away. he so-called "Purple Line" established after the ceasefire of June 10th, 1967 provided an excellent line of defense for Israel, located mostly along the watershed and enabling long range observation posts from a line of volcanic hills, on which the IDF established strategic electronic surveillance stations. On the other hand, from pure strategic view, the same Golan Heights contribute almost nothing to the defense of Syria's capital Damascus. A glimpse at the map indicates that due to topographical features to its west, Damascus can best be defended along the Awaj River near Sasa and the two stony deserts to the south, both impassable to military traffic. Any defense further west, including the Golan Heights can be outflanked, as the IDF did during the latter stages of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The Golan heights- Israel's strategic Bulwark

Due to its geo-strategic topography, Israel's northern border poses some serious anomalies to its defensive posture: What is known as the "Galilee Panhandle", an area which pokes like a finger from the Hula valley northward up to the Lebanese border, is a curious geographical phenomenon, created as result of hasty, shortsighted decisions made by the French and British following their victory over the Ottoman empire after WW1. The facts of this political fiasco, are apparent to even the most impartial observer. On its west, the Panhandle leans on a mountain range, only partially under Israeli sovereignty, the rest is Lebanon. (Over this very ground was fought last summer's Second Lebanon War, with disastrous consequences, partly due to topographical constraints) Only a mere 5000 to 7000 meters in width along its northern part, the Panhandle is dominated on its east by the towering Golan Heights, from which, pre-1967 Israeli settlements were constantly bombarded by Syrian artillery located on the overlooking slopes.

Under the present circumstances prevailing in this region, should Israel deprive itself of its most important strategic asset for a mere piece of paper, signed by a single leader, would be a strategic mistake, having serious consequences to any future negative change in Middle Eastern affairs. In fact, Syria's national interests are focused not only on the Golan Heights, which represent only an insignificant part of its entire territory. Syria's long-term strategic aims are to exert its hegemony over Lebanon and Israel's northern territory and even part of northern Jordan, which it considers part of their strategic aspirations over a "Greater Syria" predominance.

One of the options being proposed by the Baker-Hamilton report is to place US forces to mentor a future Syria-Israel peace deal over the Golan Heights, following Israel's withdrawal. Part of this would be US experts taking charge of the IDF monitoring stations on Mount Hermon and the overlooking border hills. As real-time intelligence in modern warfare is regarded imperative in early warning relinquishing these highly strategic assets, even under a friendly monitored replacement could become a crucial matter of national security. For example, During Operation Desert Storm, US intelligence on Iraqi Scud launch zones in western Iraq, vital to Israel, was denied even when Saddam's missiles impacted on Tel Aviv. But there are other reasons for Israel's reluctance to place US forces on the Golan. The presence of US forces in harms way to guard Israel against hostile infiltrations and subsequent preventive counter-guerrilla operations by the IDF could lead to unnecessary tension between the two allied nations.

In conclusion, the Golan Heights represents a vital strategic asset for Israel's security, especially in view of the current political developments in the region. The danger of the so-called Shiite Crescent engulfing Israel from its north and north-eastern border, with a Hezbollah dominated and Iranian-backed Lebanese Government, places Israel, should it cede the Golan Heights to Syria, before a strategic disaster. Being defensive in its nature, the Golan Heights not only safeguards Israel's north, but deters, by the IDF long range reach into the Damascus basin, from any offensive options, which Bashar Assad may consider to regain the Heights by force under an Iranian umbrella.
http://defense-update.com/newscast/1206/analysis/analysis-101206.htm

[IDF_TANKER]

And Jews have been under other countries lot longer than they have had an own country. That kind of logic simply doesn't work.
Couldn't agree more... :roll:


Just out of curiosity, do people in Israel think golan heights are part of the country in a same way Tel Aviv is, or just something you happened to get and what can be traded off if needed?

The answer to both questions is no, see my post above.

[Massiv]

Oh yes, I can. Not to mention, that between 1967 and 1973 there wasn't much of American support. If you feel like proving the opposite, you can go to the Yom Kippur war thread, it was discussed at length there.


Well, the history is that Golan Heights have been part of Israel now for twice the time they were part of Syria.

The state of Israel exists today beacause America helpd this, and supported Israel..

[IDF_TANKER]

The state of Israel exists today beacause America helpd this, and supported Israel..

That would be a speculation, belonging more to the alternative history Sci-Fi genre, than to actual history. However, how it contradicts the fact that Syria enjoyed comparable support from Soviet Union, and did it for more time than Israel - from US?

[Latre]

Couldn't agree more... :roll:

I don't know if you missed the point on purpose, but doesn't matter.


The answer to both questions is no, see my post above.

That article is something like 20 years late. Even though the point that Golan heights are natural obstacle when coming from Syria to Israel but not the other way around is true (I don't have expertise on that), it still wouldn't matter anymore. That is because Syria can't, and never again will be able to threat Israel in conventional warfare. I mean seriously, I saw their airforce flying with Mig-21:s. And as we all know, Israel can bomb targets well inside Syria with impunity. Syria had it's chance with Soviet support, but they blew it. So "long-term strategic aim to exert its hegemony over Israel's northern territory" is not really plausible. The guerrilla theory might have little more to it, but the exactly same arguments could have been said about handing Sinai back to Egypt. It did made the tunnels possible, but I think it's small price to pay for peace.

[RoyB]

Giving back the Golan Heights in not a small price at all.
Most Israelis consider the Golan a part of Israel, there are 20,000 people living in the Golan, there is Jewish history in the Golan, the Israelis love the Golan.
The top of the reasons of why Israel shouldn't give back the Golan is its strategic value, which is vital for Israel's existence.
Israel can't afford placing bets on its existence, its actual being.. if at all, something REALLY big must happen, especially from the Syrian side, in order to convince Israel that giving up the Golan will be beneficial.
And frankly, even then, the Israeli connection to the Golan won't be torn just like that.. it will be a MAJOR argument of why Israel shouldn't let this piece of land go.
As for me, I don't see anything like that(the topic of the thread) happening in our life time at least.

[IDF_TANKER]

I don't know if you missed the point on purpose, but doesn't matter.
I didn't miss any point, for there was none - your analogy doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Try to apply one-to-one both cases to each other, and see where it gets you...



That article is something like 20 years late. Even though the point that Golan heights are natural obstacle when coming from Syria to Israel but not the other way around is true (I don't have expertise on that), it still wouldn't matter anymore. That is because Syria can't, and never again will be able to threat Israel in conventional warfare. I mean seriously, I saw their airforce flying with Mig-21:s. And as we all know, Israel can bomb targets well inside Syria with impunity. Syria had it's chance with Soviet support, but they blew it.

Conventional war is not an issue.


So "long-term strategic aim to exert its hegemony over Israel's northern territory" is not really plausible. The guerrilla theory might have little more to it, but the exactly same arguments could have been said about handing Sinai back to Egypt. It did made the tunnels possible, but I think it's small price to pay for peace.

Egypt is not Syria and Sinai is not Golan. Egyptian regime is western-oriented, secular and relatively stable, and its mere existence largely depends on US (military aid etc). Syria, unlike Egypt, is the best Iranian ally and this is not going to change after peace agreements, not in reality. Even if they drop (officially) the support of Hezbolla it will not mean, that Hezbollah will automatically stop being a threat to Israel, in best case, perhaps, weakened. Syrian regime is Alawi, which are about 10-15% of the Syrian population and largely exists due to the iron hand of Assad the father (Hama atc). Right now the border with Syria is the most peaceful one, except, perhaps, Jordanian. I can go on and on, really, but the fact is, that the peace with Syria brings us almost no benefits, and at huge cost on our part.

But I think we are deviating from the topic (my fault too), the topic was the Syrian perspective.

[Sumadinac]

The state of Israel exists today beacause America helpd this, and supported Israel..

You must learn history, because your level is critically low.

The US started to massively help israel at the end of 60's, not before.

And about the fact that "The state of Israel exists today beacause America helpd this, and supported Israel" rofl

Israel exists because they won their indepandance war of 1948, alone. They had rifles and machine guns, while on the opposite side, the arab coalition composed of Jordan, egypt, lebannon, syria and irak had tanks and more than 100 planes. Israeli started to get planes and tanks after their 1948 victory on arabs, I won't even mention the haganah fights against arab militias in the 30's and 40's

[IDF_TANKER]

You must learn history, because your level is critically low.

The US started to massively help israel at the end of 60's, not before.

And about the fact that "The state of Israel exists today beacause America helpd this, and supported Israel" rofl

Israel exists because they won their indepandance war of 1948, alone. They had rifles and machine guns, while on the opposite side, the arab coalition composed of Jordan, egypt, lebannon, syria and irak had tanks and more than 100 planes. Israeli started to get planes and tanks after their 1948 victory on arabs, I won't even mention the haganah fights against arab militias in the 30's and 40's

Man, as much as I appreciate the spirit, let's not deviate too much from the original topic, we won't cover in one thread the whole Israeli history.

[Sumadinac]

Man, as much as I appreciate the spirit, let's not deviate too much from the original topic, we won't cover in one thread the whole Israeli history.

My bad, I've just replied because the "israel exists because of the USA" rhetoric is just pathetic and also a total lack of history knowlegde, nevertheless sorry for the off topic. :)

[IsraDani]

My bad, I've just replied because the "israel exists because of the USA" rhetoric is just pathetic and also a total lack of history knowlegde, nevertheless sorry for the off topic. :)

some israel basher should type "bab el wad","latrun","burma road" or something like that...ignorance about israel never cease to amaze me.:-(

[AttilaA]

Hatay has always belonged to republic of Turkiye
we didn't occupied it, people decided theirselves
and the city had more turkish majority then arab
Neither Turkey or Syria fought for it, so its sounds logical
everbody accepted is as a turkish property
meanwhile Syria lost Golan in a battle, it was their own fault

i dont care if it belongs to israel or not.
They started a battle which they couldn't win

[Rubber Johnny]

i dont care if it belongs to israel or not.
They started a battle which they couldn't win

Exactly.
Syria started the war, Syria used Golan heights' strategic advantages, Syria could not complete the mess it started, Syria is responsible for the loss of the Golan heights.

As far as I see it, giving back the Golan heights to Syria as of these times, means that Israel will be covered completley by missile range that will obviously be abused by proxies (Hamas, Hizb, other small names) but never Syria itself (unless they finally grow some balls to attack Israel on their own instead of sending pathetic organisations to do the job).

And besides - there is not a single doubt in my mind that if Syria or another hostile muslim country surrounding Israel were to capture an area of that size and importance during a war, they will never return it, especially if it's colonized.

[speckfire]

Hatay has always belonged to republic of Turkiye
we didn't occupied it, people decided theirselves
and the city had more turkish majority then arab
Neither Turkey or Syria fought for it, so its sounds logical
everbody accepted is as a turkish property



The French gave it to the Turkish Republic so they dont enter WWII.
Well at least that's the Syrian point of view.

[gilgoul]

well, since I'm moving there nex month, send them my kisses.
BTW, in 1994, 400 of the Golan Druze families who burnt their Israeli Id's in 1981/82, tried to obtain the Israeli ID in order to flee to Galilee instead of living under the Baath.
400 families BTW in the Druze Golan, it is at least 25000 people on a conservative interpretation.

[RoyB]

Gilgoul, Kibbutz?

[GilBates]

Syria cannot afford to give up the golan. Israel's role as the enemy against everyone must unite against is crucial in stopgaping syria's problems - from the loss of russia as patron (only relatively recently recovered, and not much of a funding backing to rely on), the failure of the syrian agrarian reforms (look up the wheat produce of syria... it's an economic disaster threatening country stability), stifling ethnic dissnet (kurds, sunni-alawite tensions), stifling foreign relations blunders (the support to PKK, a policy which they had to abandon only in the last few years - for one - and two, being ostracized by most arab countries).

so no, no chance for that. israel still plays a crucial role in Syria's stability, one that it cannot afford to give up (even if israel yields the golan), and yielding the golan to israel would mean admitting defeat of the very basic concepts syria stands on, something bound to seriously shock the syrian regime.

[kahn267]

The Golan has been discussed before. It has to be mentioned that it hold strategic importance to Israel. This can be furthered by the majority of people living in the Golan are Israeli Arabs not Israeli Jews. This means that the fact of Israelis living there, isn't quite the most important issue.

To simply describe it, its like a mezzanine looking over all of Israel. If Syria was to have it returned and they didn't go strong on the peace deal, it would be disastrous for Israel. Furthermore they can take a step back and not claim responsibility for what happens if say Hezbollah aimed attacks from there. This kind of removal of responsibility is seen by the Lebanese the Palestinians with Hamas.

Those who know of the Cuban Missile Crisis where Russian missiles were pointed at the US in Cuba - this is pretty much the same thing except its only a few kilometres from Tel Aviv and without nuclear missiles. But continuation of Iran's ambitions, not to mention Syria's that was destroyed recently, and one can see how serious things can get.

[gilgoul]

Gilgoul, Kibbutz?

Yep,
El Rom if everything goes well.

[LRPV]

Yep,
El Rom if everything goes well.

Mind where you step p-)

[gilgoul]

Mind where you step p-)
Well, what do you think cows are for?
Cows, the only edible demining device :)

[LRPV]

Well, what do you think cows are for?
Cows, the only edible demining device :)

The RSPCA are looking for you....:)

[MedVader]

Syria has to be defeated decisively 1 more time for it give up on regaining the Golan.

So Israel's choice is simple. Either withdraw or take a chance that the next war is going to go its way for a 3rd time.

Unless Israel starts something preemptively, I'd say Syria won't make another effort for at least 2 more years when they'll have a supply line to Iran along with a nuclear ally.

[gilgoul]

The RSPCA are looking for you....:)

Really, because they pretend that injection is painless.
But it leaves a funny taste to the meat :)

Seriously, about a 100 cows trigger AP mines on the Golan every year, most of the time because they get stranded in mine fields when fences are damaged.

[RoyB]

Mine where you step p-)

Yep,
El Rom if everything goes well.
Sounds great.
A lot of Kibbutzim in the Golan are receiving new residents(families) these days?

I always wish that one day I'll be able to move up north.. but its a pain in the ass and practically impossible to do unless you have some really good and steady job up there. you can't drive down to Tel Aviv every day.:)
But as I understand you're a tyulim guide(?), so that shouldn't be a problem.

[Estopped]

The problem for Israel is that the Golan will be an open wound for as long as they and Syria are neighbours. It won't matter who's in power in Syria or Israel. There will be no peace without it being handed back. And it's a gamble on Israels part to assume that the next 50 years will see it maintain superiority to the extent that it can simply ignore Syria. In all likelihood the next 50 years will see Syria and Iran only get more powerful, and possibly have nuclear weapons. In Irans case (after a detente) could see its military power increase significantly as it modernises.

IMO the ball is in Israels court. It may not suit their agenda to hand it back now; but they will have to someday - whether it be in exchange for peace, or simply because they are faced with a relative decline in power.

It's important to recognise that nobody recognises Israels claim over the Golan. Many of you are saying "to the victor goes the spoils" but that flies in the face of international law that exists. Israel isn't Russia or the US. They are subject to the whims of others. And in this instances their chief ally might be on a decling gradient, while others may not see them so favourably.

The idea that Syria gives up on getting the Golan back is simply wishful thinking.

[RoyB]

The idea that Syria gives up on getting the Golan back is simply wishful thinking.
The idea of Israel giving up on the Golan is too.
It just won't happen..

[GiladS]

And it's a gamble on Israels part to assume that the next 50 years will see it maintain superiority to the extent that it can simply ignore Syria. In all likelihood the next 50 years will see Syria and Iran only get more powerful, and possibly have nuclear weapons. In Irans case (after a detente) could see its military power increase significantly as it modernises.


It is because Israel is worried regarding the balance of power with Iran/Syria that it doesn't hurry to give up on a strategic asset like the Golan.

[Estopped]

The idea of Israel giving up on the Golan is too.
It just won't happen..

It will, and probably sooner than you think.

Israel is eventually gonna strike a grand bargain because it can't rely on the US to protect it [diplomatically] for ever. Israel will get concessions and it will probably mark peace between the two.

But the world is changing; the power structure is changing before our very eyes. This idea that Israel can fight against the tide forever is rooted in a fast decaying power dynamic. I think over the years you will see Israels power ebb just like Britains did - just like the US's is doing now. And bigger countries will get more powerful - like Brazil, China, India, Russia. Even if it happens relatively where Israels power stays the same and others increases.

[Estopped]

It is because Israel is worried regarding the balance of power with Iran/Syria that it doesn't hurry to give up on a strategic asset like the Golan.

I'm thinking about the long term. Politically Israel is facing problems that may get worse and accumulate over time. The signs are there: goldstone, turkey, nuclear proliferation resolutions, boycotts of goods and academia in occupied territories.

Now I agree that Israel won't give up the golan without getting major concessions. At the same time I think if they truely think that they can keep the Golan then they are making a major mistake that will bite them over the long term. Israel, imo will have to strike a deal when it has maximum bargaining power and not less.

[dracon49]

As far as i know and i dont know much the Golan is more under our control then Syrian's control so it needs to stay like that.

[GiladS]

I'm thinking about the long term. Politically Israel is facing problems that may get worse and accumulate over time. The signs are there: goldstone, turkey, nuclear proliferation resolutions, boycotts of goods and academia in occupied territories.


These things aren't really different from what has been going on in the last 20 years or so actually.



Now I agree that Israel won't give up the golan without getting major concessions. At the same time I think if they truely think that they can keep the Golan then they are making a major mistake that will bite them over the long term. Israel, imo will have to strike a deal when it has maximum bargaining power and not less.


Concessions on Syria's part would be distancing itself from Iran and ceasing to support proxies like Hizbollah and Hamas, right?

This won't happen under Assad as he knows that his regime won't last long following this.

[Estopped]

These things aren't really different from what has been going on in the last 20 years or so actually.

I wouldn't agree considering current events.




Concessions on Syria's part would be distancing itself from Iran and ceasing to support proxies like Hizbollah and Hamas, right?

This won't happen under Assad as he knows that his regime won't last long following this.This to me underlies a lack of foresight

In the future who says that Iran will still be isolated?
It's more probable than not that sometime in the next decade Iran will emerge from isolation anyway. The question is under what guise. Will it be because of a political solution between Iran and the US; or Iran rising because of a changing power dynamic with new powerful plays: China; or a War that leads to regime change.

Because if Iran does: simply by fact of population, land and resources Iran will be more powerful than Israel. Then the idea that Syria distance itself from Iran still relies on the current scenario of an isolated or contained Iran. I think that's an assumption too far given what's happening in the world.

There's absolutely no guarantee that the regional dynamic that persists now will continue.

[GiladS]

I wouldn't agree considering current events.


That's my point, these current events (at least those that you mentioned) are not that different from past events.



It's more probable than not that sometime in the next decade Iran will emerge from isolation anyway. The question is under what guise. Will it be because of a political solution between Iran and the US; or Iran rising because of a changing power dynamic with new powerful plays: China; or a War that leads to regime change.


Following a regime change there's a good chance that even Israel will have relations with Iran as was the case before 1979.

I doubt that under the current Iranian regime it will emerge from isolation as for now this regime has shown all the signs of expansionism... something which the Arabs and the west won't stand for.

[GB_FXST]

I wouldn't agree considering current events.


This to me underlies a lack of foresight

In the future who says that Iran will still be isolated?
It's more probable than not that sometime in the next decade Iran will emerge from isolation anyway. The question is under what guise. Will it be because of a political solution between Iran and the US; or Iran rising because of a changing power dynamic with new powerful plays: China; or a War that leads to regime change.

Because if Iran does: simply by fact of population, land and resources Iran will be more powerful than Israel. Then the idea that Syria distance itself from Iran still relies on the current scenario of an isolated or contained Iran. I think that's an assumption too far given what's happening in the world.

There's absolutely no guarantee that the regional dynamic that persists now will continue.

Who is to say that a secular moderate Iran will not emerge?

Is it not possible that the people of Iran will overthrow the regime of the Mullahs?

[bbsh]

Following a regime change there's a good chance that even Israel will have relations with Iran as was the case before 1979.



Depends..

By regime change, what do you mean? A complete overhaul/revolution, removal of all the mullahs, their clerical councils, etc..

Or just, the supreme leader replaced by another, mahmood replaced by moussavi?

[Estopped]

That's my point, these current events (at least those that you mentioned) are not that different from past events.

I can't agree with that. We are seeing a massive sea change. The US is slowly relinquishing its role as a hyperpower. China is on the way up in a major way with no real slowdown.

The question is what interests will China pursue:
Resource rich Iran or Israel?

The signs are already there that the Chinese won't allow crippling sanctions on Iran. And they are pragmatists with no ideological connection to either Iran or Israel.



Following a regime change there's a good chance that even Israel will have relations with Iran as was the case before 1979.

I doubt that under the current Iranian regime it will emerge from isolation as for now this regime has shown all the signs of expansionism... something which the Arabs and the west won't stand for.As much as i'd like to see regime change (via an internal revolution from the people, or slow change that incrementally reduces the power of the mullahs) I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I don't think the west is going to be the dominant player anymore. The Arabs have no real power. IMO there will be a compromise - for the reason that both sides are weak. I think the situation is ripe for cutting a deal. It just won't be the all or nothing no-enrichment at all policy that many have been demanding.

[GiladS]

Depends..

By regime change, what do you mean? A complete overhaul/revolution, removal of all the mullahs, their clerical councils, etc..

Or just, the supreme leader replaced by another, mahmood replaced by moussavi?

A regime change in my eyes would be the overthrow of the theocratic regime that currently exists... meaning the first option you brought forth.

[bbsh]

Who is to say that a secular moderate Iran will not emerge?

Is it not possible that the people of Iran will overthrow the regime of the Mullahs?


Under the current circumstances, i dont think it is possible unless there is a sudden and big jolt of an event that occurs.

The entire system in place has been structured under the principle that they will never allow people to do to them what they did to the shah in 79..

[Estopped]

Who is to say that a secular moderate Iran will not emerge?

Is it not possible that the people of Iran will overthrow the regime of the Mullahs?

I hope it will.

I think there are two models that come happen depending on circumstances:
1) Iran stays isolated leading to some kind of snap revolution
2) Iran opens up and there is a gradual lessening of the power of the mullahs as it develops and modernises ala Britain reducing the power of the monarch through parliament.

[bbsh]

A regime change in my eyes would be the overthrow of the theocratic regime that currently exists... meaning the first option you brought forth.

I really think it could be a long time before we see something like this happen..

Just my opinion, but i think the IRGC and the mullah's have too strong a grip on everything from education, to industry, to politics to be pushed aside..

Not only that, but the regime itself has no shame in torturing or killing in broad daylight.. Be it political opposition, human rights specialists, journalists or students, it doesnt matter.. These are just minor details.

[GiladS]

I can't agree with that. We are seeing a massive sea change. The US is slowly relinquishing its role as a hyperpower. China is on the way up in a major way with no real slowdown.


I think it only seems this way due to Obama's lax foreign policy (and presidents come and go as we all know).

The U.S still has a decade or two to hold this title and even when China will emerge as a true superpower somewhere between 2020-2030, then the U.S will still hold the title of a superpower though not a hyperpower.



The question is what interests will China pursue:
Resource rich Iran or Israel?

The signs are already there that the Chinese won't allow crippling sanctions on Iran. And they are pragmatists with no ideological connection to either Iran or Israel.


The Chinese see Israel's potential as a technological powerhouse.

I think there will be a lot of flip flopping by the Chinese when it will come to the Middle East.



As much as i'd like to see regime change (via an internal revolution from the people, or slow change that incrementally reduces the power of the mullahs) I don't see it happening anytime soon.



I agree.

[GB_FXST]

I really think it could be a long time before we see something like this happen..

Just my opinion, but i think the IRGC and the mullah's have too strong a grip on everything from education, to industry, to politics to be pushed aside..

Not only that, but the regime itself has no shame in torturing or killing in broad daylight.. Be it political opposition, human rights specialists, journalists or students, it doesnt matter.. These are just minor details.

Stranger things have happened.

In 1984, you would have been a laughingstock to seriously suggest that within 10 years the Soviet Union would cease to exist.
But, within five years, the Berlin Wall was down; within six, German unification; and within nine, the USSR was no more

[bbsh]

Stranger things have happened.

In 1984, you would have been a laughingstock to seriously suggest that within 10 years the Soviet Union would cease to exist.
But, within five years, the Berlin Wall was down; within six, German unification; and within nine, the USSR was no more


I hope you are right..

The only real big jolt to the system i can see in the near future, is the death of the supreme leader..

He is getting rather old and i think the transition between him and whomever else will be the ultimate test in the loyalty of the elite in the higher echelons of power..

[Estopped]

I think it only seems this way due to Obama's lax foreign policy (and presidents come and go as we all know).

I don't think it has anything to do with a lax foreign policy. It'd be the same with McCain. The US simply can't afford to do what it did previously anymore. It wouldn't surprise me if things like the ABM shield were actually ditched for monetary concerns.

When money is tight nations will downsize. This is emphasized even more when there is a competitor who has plenty of money and is willing to take up the slack.


The U.S still has a decade or two to hold this title and even when China will emerge as a true superpower somewhere between 2020-2030, then the U.S will still hold the title of a superpower though not a hyperpower. It may do. But i think in the next 5-10 years you will actually see more US weakness before they emerge stronger. The deficit and the debt coupled with military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that there will be change in what the US can do: which is going to be affected by cost-cutting and contraction in foreign policy commitments. We are already seing the effects with cancelled military programmes. I think that's only going to get worse.


The Chinese see Israel's potential as a technological powerhouse.But with no oil and gas. No 70+ million people as a market for their goods. China doesn't "need" Israel. It has no ideological connection with them. A simple fact is that China will need the natural resources that Iran has in abundance. They don't need say....Finland or Denmark. In realpolitik terms China's position on Iran is determined not by their attachment to either Iran or Israel, but by the position of the US and Europe. The former being the biggest obstacle.

For all of Israels technology it doesn't make anything that they can't get elsewhere or make themselves. It is more in Israels interest to have China as a friend than the other way rounnd.

[GiladS]

I don't think it has anything to do with a lax foreign policy. It'd be the same with McCain. The US simply can't afford to do what it did previously anymore. It wouldn't surprise me if things like the ABM shield were actually ditched for monetary concerns.


Putting cancelled projects aside, the U.S is appearing weaker due to a a less hardline stance by the U.S towards various issues, at times even bordering appeasment.

Eventually Obama will probably learn that a change in policy is needed.



For all of Israels technology it doesn't make anything that they can't get elsewhere or make themselves.

The reason Israel is considerd a technological powerhouse is exactly because it provides solutions and advancements that are either groundbreaking or are very advanced yet affordable.



It is more in Israels interest to have China as a friend than the other way rounnd.

Never stated otherwise.

But anyway, I think we have gone little too off topic.

[Estopped]

Putting cancelled projects aside, the U.S is appearing weaker due to a a less hardline stance by the U.S towards various issues, at times even bordering appeasment.

Eventually Obama will probably learn that a change in policy is needed.

That's what i'm getting at. The days of hard power are over (for the US). The US can't afford it. What do you think the last 8 years have been an experiment in? American problems in pressuring Iran are precisely because it distanced the likes of Russia and China and tried to force its way through. It has backfired and now they smell blood and want to capitalise when the US is weak. They will push the boundaries in the next few years.


The reason Israel is considerd a technological powerhouse is exactly because it provides solutions and advancements that are either groundbreaking or are very advanced yet affordable.But nothing to base a strategic relationship on. The point I'm trying to get across is that oil and gas are extremely important to China. They are vital to its economy.

Unless Israel can get China dependant on its technology (with no alternatives [when they have no dependancy on Israel right now]) then you can see what i'm trying to say about where China will place its priorities.



Never stated otherwise.

But anyway, I think we have gone little too off topic.I agree in a sense. But it's still relevant because Israel's position on the Golan heights will depend on its relative strength. That will be determined by who it is friends with.

[GiladS]

That's what i'm getting at. The days of hard power are over (for the US). The US can't afford it. What do you think the last 8 years have been an experiment in? American problems in pressuring Iran are precisely because it distanced the likes of Russia and China and tried to force its way through. It has backfired and now they smell blood and want to capitalise when the US is weak. They will push the boundaries in the next few years.


Doubt that the U.S has distanced itself as these countries have always had their own agendas.


But nothing to base a strategic relationship on.

R&D and joint projects in various fields.


The point I'm trying to get across is that oil and gas are extremely important to China. They are vital to its economy.

Iran isn't the only country exporting gas and oil.



I agree in a sense. But it's still relevant because Israel's position on the Golan heights will depend on its relative strength. That will be determined by who it is friends with.


Israel became a regional superpower only following the Six Day War.

Up untill then it didn't really have close relations with either one of the superpowers at the time (France was the closest ally).

So I don't worry much regarding Israel finding itself again in a multi superpower world.

[Estopped]

Doubt that the U.S has distanced itself as these countries have always had their own agendas.

They have. But the US didn't do itself any favours with its policy towards them. Now its backfiring as the Russians and Chinese are brushing the Americans off and ignoring them like they were.


R&D and joint projects in various fields.

China could quite easily do this with many high technology countries. It's certainly not vital for China's economy now or in the future whereas oil and gas is. And it's a finite resource.


Iran isn't the only country exporting gas and oil.

Yes. But China is a growing nation with growing demands. Iran is a country with untapped reserves in strategic resources that are vital to China's economy. Iran is the third largest supplier of oil to China iirc.

China giving up Iran is as likely as the US giving up Saudi Arabia.



Israel became a regional superpower only following the Six Day War.

Up untill then it didn't really have close relations with either one of the superpowers at the time (France was the closest ally).

So I don't worry much regarding Israel finding itself again in a multi superpower world.

And in a multi-superpower world different nations have different beneficiaries. Previously many of the arab nations had a superpower in decline as their friend and now look where they are.

This is not to say that Israel will regress. But imo they almost certainly won't enjoy the same privileges that they have now. Not only are they very strong, but their enemies are kept weak. That's why I talk about a "relative decline in power" as a result of its enemies becoming more powerful.

[Karaahmetoglu]

Actually Syria has not really accepted giving up Hatay, I read somewhere that their maps still has Hatay as a part of Syria (I don't know how true this is).

[derkrieger]

The French gave it to the Turkish Republic so they dont enter WWII.
Well at least that's the Syrian point of view.

that is the biggest travesty of history-telling I have ever seen in my life.
French and the Brits were dying to see Turkey fight against the Nazis along with them.
On a side note, Hatay and Golan are not comparable at all.

There had been a democratic referendum in the Hatay Republic (read NOT Syria), at the end of which it became crystal clear that the indigenous people were all for an adhesion with Turkey. This was a move sanctioned by the UN of the time, League of Nations. It was a move sanctioned by the law, just like Turkey lost Mosul and said nothing in 1925, this time it was granted this piece pf land.

However, Golan was conquered by the Israeli Forces after a Syrian belligerency, and due to its strategic importance Israel does not want to give up its occupation there, which is fine.

so
these two cases are not comparable at all.
thank you