Golan Heights referendum bill approval postponed

[GiladS]

Referendum bill approval postponed; Golan community angered


Knesset was due to vote Monday on renewing legislative procedures on bill requiring referendum for any withdrawal from territories, including Golan Heights. Last minute saw vote being postponed. MK Yariv Levin says PM promised to reach decision within month. Head of Golan Regional Council Eli Malka says 'Trickery, scheming not the proper way to prevent democratic vote'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3795864,00.html

[bbsh]

GiladS, whats your take on if a referendum took place?

Cede the golan or not?

I have an opinion :) just want to know yours

[GB_FXST]

It’s a good bill. A referendum should be required to grant approval to cede any land.

At any rate, Ha Am Im HaGolan (The People are with the Golan).

[Estopped]

It's all a bit pointless really. They know full well that under international law the land doesn't belong to them. So you have to question what is the purpose of such legislation other than to contravene the law even further and place burdens on themselves in future.

[RoyB]

With all due respect, the average Israeli doesn't have a clue and will simply vote 'No'.
Such major decisions should be handled by people who actually know their thing.

Well, I don't really know.. I'm actually quite torn up about this, but I'm leaning towards the 'No, it shouldn't be approved.'.

[GB_FXST]

It's all a bit pointless really. They know full well that under international law the land doesn't belong to them. So you have to question what is the purpose of such legislation other than to contravene the law even further and place burdens on themselves in future.


Not at all.

Under UNSC 242, Israel is not obligated to withdraw from the Golan in the absence of a peace deal with Syria.

So, the referendum on ceding the Golan will essentially be a referendum on a future Syrian peace deal.

And frankly, I trust the public more than I trust the politicians.

[RoyB]

It's all a bit pointless really. They know full well that under international law the land doesn't belong to them. So you have to question what is the purpose of such legislation other than to contravene the law even further and place burdens on themselves in future.
International law doesn't change a thing in this case.
The Golan will probably stay Israeli, as it should be* (because of many reasons).
*For now.

[Estopped]

Exactly. You are saying that it should stay Israeli until an appropriate deal can be worked out to return it to its rightful owner. This is because under international law not one country recognises it as belonging to Israel. Imo a referendum only makes that process more difficult. It puts obstacles in front of a peaceful settlement.

[GB_FXST]

Exactly. You are saying that it should stay Israeli until an appropriate deal can be worked out to return it to its rightful owner. This is because under international law not one country recognises it as belonging to Israel. Imo a referendum only makes that process more difficult. It puts obstacles in front of a peaceful settlement.

The democratic process is neither efficient nor pretty.

It may take some tine for Syria to come to terms with a deal that is acceptable to the people of Israel. So, in the meantime, the people are with the Golan.

[GiladS]

GiladS, whats your take on if a referendum took place?

Cede the golan or not?

I have an opinion :) just want to know yours

I am seriously thinking of moving to the Golan one day... nuff said. :)

[Estopped]

The democratic process is neither efficient nor pretty.

It may take some tine for Syria to come to terms with a deal that is acceptable to the people of Israel. So, in the meantime, the people are with the Golan.

It's got nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with realpolitik.

All it will do is make trouble for Israel in the future. And maybe that's the intention. By making it subject to a referendum they know full well that the task of giving it back to its rightful owner will be practically impossible. As a corrollary it will only worsen relations with Syria that will stay with both countries over the long term and form a barrier to peace.

[RoyB]

I am seriously thinking of moving to the Golan one day... nuff said. :)
I'm with you.

I always regretted being a city kid.. had wished to grow up in a Kibbutz.;)

[RoyB]

All it will do is make trouble for Israel in the future. And maybe that's the intention. By making it subject to a referendum they know full well that the task of giving it back to its rightful owner will be practically impossible. As a corrollary it will only worsen relations with Syria that will stay with both countries over the long term and form a barrier to peace.
I can live with the current state at the Israeli-Syrian border.. been really quiet.
Assad's regime needs to keep the Golan Israeli(unless they win it by war), it is the only thing that is holding them together, at their own special spot at the top.
The Golan will stay Israeli. international law or rightful owner, the Golan is Israeli.

[OrangeWolf]

It's got nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with realpolitik.

All it will do is make trouble for Israel in the future. And maybe that's the intention. By making it subject to a referendum they know full well that the task of giving it back to its rightful owner will be practically impossible. As a corrollary it will only worsen relations with Syria that will stay with both countries over the long term and form a barrier to peace.

GOOD GOD Estopped, a lot of bla bla from your side, international law is very nice (considering you are even correct about that), except for the safety of the people in the North. But if you go to the Hula valley and look up to Ramat HaGolan you have ALL your answers why we cannot trust a dictatorship with imperialist ambitions like Syria to have this land. You can place a pillbox at any random place and start shooting civilians, Syrian style. In history Syria used this to their advantage to even prevent Israelis from entering Israeli territory according to the 1949 armistice.

It has been under Israeli control longer than it ever has been under Syrian control, and I'd like to see it stay that way. In due time the Druze will hopefully become active citizens, as a growing group of young people are (regardless the Druze on the Golan are really nice people!).

I guess if we (international community who cares ****-all about the safety of Israelis) negotiate Sudetenland-style the future of the Golan heights, next up is the Upper Galilee.... :cantbeli:

On a personal account I would have to see the eviction of some of my closest friends I have in Israel. Screw that.

[gilgoul]

I am seriously thinking of moving to the Golan one day... nuff said. :)


PM me if you want some info's, the Wife and me are signing tomorrow :)
El Rom, here we come!

[gilgoul]

GOOD GOD Estopped, a lot of bla bla from your side, international law is very nice (considering you are even correct about that), except for the safety of the people in the North. But if you go to the Hula valley and look up to Ramat HaGolan you have ALL your answers why we cannot trust a dictatorship with imperialist ambitions like Syria to have this land. You can place a pillbox at any random place and start shooting civilians, Syrian style. In history Syria used this to their advantage to even prevent Israelis from entering Israeli territory according to the 1949 armistice.

It has been under Israeli control longer than it ever has been under Syrian control, and I'd like to see it stay that way. In due time the Druze will hopefully become active citizens, as a growing group of young people are (regardless the Druze on the Golan are really nice people!).

I guess if we (international community who cares ****-all about the safety of Israelis) negotiate Sudetenland-style the future of the Golan heights, next up is the Upper Galilee.... :cantbeli:

On a personal account I would have to see the eviction of some of my closest friends I have in Israel. Screw that.

Needless to say that when "the peace process" was at it's height, thousands of Golan druzes floked to the local authorities to get the Israeli ID's they had demonstratively burnt in front of the cameras in the 80's.
(knowing the Syrian regime, who can really blame them)
Also, they wouldn't be that happy to see any Syrian arab fellah coming back to the lands they are now using as their own.

[RoyB]

PM me if you want some info's, the Wife and me are signing tomorrow :)
El Rom, here we come!
I envy you so much Gilgoul.

[OrangeWolf]

Needless to say that when "the peace process" was at it's height, thousands of Golan druzes floked to the local authorities to get the Israeli ID's they had demonstratively burnt in front of the cameras in the 80's.
(knowing the Syrian regime, who can really blame them)
Also, they wouldn't be that happy to see any Syrian arab fellah coming back to the lands they are now using as their own.

Besides some of those guys in Madjal Shams had kick ass big houses, I hitchhiked there with a Druze and he told me when we were close to Nimrod "this is Syria". But he was kinda pragmatic, worked for Israelis and all that. Later a young guy told me he got IDs because it's all about reality and his future: and obviously he knows Druze are MUCH better off under Israeli rule than Syrian rule. Except the ones who harass those who get IDs, cuz that happens :roll:


PM me if you want some info's, the Wife and me are signing tomorrow :)
El Rom, here we come!

The place was cold and rainy.... p-)

[RoyB]

^As much as nice the Druzes up north are, I wouldn't be hitchhiking over there.
Majdal Shams is full of families that got 'separated'.. on several occasions they come out yelling to each other from both sides of the fence.

[OrangeWolf]

^As much as nice the Druzes up north are, I wouldn't be hitchhiking over there.
Majdal Shams is full of families that got 'separated'.. on several occasions they come out yelling to each other from both sides of the fence.

As much as I appreciate to read all your posts I think you are over-reacting a bit :). Druze were on of the most reliable "taxi drivers" I had in the North (including Israeli hippies, and the Blue Police at night once). I have traveled all over the Golan Heights with them, some of the cars were more worrying to me than any of the people who took me in their car.

I hitchhiked on the Golan heights even at dark, that was ****ed up, but really I wouldn't say it's not safe, I had too much times to judge otherwise. I'd say try it ;)

[RoyB]

In general I never favor hitchhiking but I'll let you be your own judge.

[GB_FXST]

It's got nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with realpolitik.

All it will do is make trouble for Israel in the future. And maybe that's the intention. By making it subject to a referendum they know full well that the task of giving it back to its rightful owner will be practically impossible. As a corrollary it will only worsen relations with Syria that will stay with both countries over the long term and form a barrier to peace.

Israel should not be expected to suspend core democratic principles because someone somewhere decries those principles as obstructionist.

Considering the bloody consequences following Oslo, it is reasonable for the people of Israel to demand a referendum to ratify future peace deals that have the potential to adversely impact the security and welfare of the citizenry.

[GiladS]

I'm with you.

I always regretted being a city kid.. had wished to grow up in a Kibbutz.;)

I live on a moshav in the Negev (was also born and raised here) and as much as I love the desert I was cptivated by Golan since the very first time I travelled there.

[GiladS]

PM me if you want some info's, the Wife and me are signing tomorrow :)
El Rom, here we come!

Thanks mate, El Rom does seem to be an excellent choice.

Going into agriculture?

[dracon49]

In the next month it will come again for approval and it will pass easily. And about Meridor, i really dont know what he does in the Likud. Like he is a Likud memeber he can be in the Labor or Meretz.

[Estopped]

Israel should not be expected to suspend core democratic principles because someone somewhere decries those principles as obstructionist.

Considering the bloody consequences following Oslo, it is reasonable for the people of Israel to demand a referendum to ratify future peace deals that have the potential to adversely impact the security and welfare of the citizenry.

But it won't be a referendum on peace otherwise any peace deal with Syria will be subject to a referendum.

It's got nothing to do with core democratic principles. Giving Israeli citizens a referendum on land that they have no right to is like giving a person who happens to come across stolen goods a referendum on returning them when the rightful owner comes looking.

[Givati575]

Ha am im ha golan :)
Israel will never give back the Golan, EVER

[GiladS]

But it won't be a referendum on peace otherwise any peace deal with Syria will be subject to a referendum.

It's got nothing to do with core democratic principles. Giving Israeli citizens a referendum on land that they have no right to is like giving a person who happens to come across stolen goods a referendum on returning them when the rightful owner comes looking.

I think that with the amount of blood that Israelis have shed on the Golan, we have more than earned our right over that land.

[Estopped]

Ha am im ha golan :)
Israel will never give back the Golan, EVER

I wouldn't be too sure about that. As i've explained in previous threads international law is not going to go away. So the issue for Israel is not whether it can keep the Golan but what it can get in response for returning it.

All it takes is the winds of change to sweep in one direction and political momentum to build.

[GB_FXST]

But it won't be a referendum on peace otherwise any peace deal with Syria will be subject to a referendum.

It's got nothing to do with core democratic principles. Giving Israeli citizens a referendum on land that they have no right to is like giving a person who happens to come across stolen goods a referendum on returning them when the rightful owner comes looking.

Your analogy is flawed.

Israel fought a defensive war in 1967.

Syria initiated hostilities; Syria lost the Golan; Syria must make peace with Israel to restore its sovereignty over the Golan.

Israeli acceptance criteria is for a peace deal is an internal, not an international, matter.

[Estopped]

I think that with the amount of blood that Israelis have shed on the Golan, we have more than earned our right over that land.

You must at least accept that under international law nobody recognises Israels sovereignty over the Golan. Now you can dismiss it, but it's there, and isn't going to go away.

Would Russia be justified in keeping Germany?
After all, they spilled alot of blood there.

[GiladS]

You must at least accept that under international law nobody recognises Israels sovereignty over the Golan. Now you can dismiss it, but it's there, and isn't going to go away.


To be honest, I don't really care if anyone recognises Israeli sovereignty over the Golan as long as we ourselves recognise this fact.

Just as I don't care that there are countries that don't recognise Israel's right to exist... it exists and it's a fact you can chose to live with or not... like I said, I don't care.



Would Russia be justified in keeping Germany?
After all, they spilled alot of blood there.


Comparing the GDR to the Golan Heights is like comparing apples and oranges.

[Estopped]

To be honest, I don't really care if anyone recognises Israeli sovereignty over the Golan as long as we ourselves recognise this fact.


But you should simply because of the fact that Israel is a tiny nation that is not a superpower. Your approach relies on continued Israeli power in world that is changing rather quickly. I personally think its a flawed approach simply because unlike Israels right to exist, Israel is simply in the wrong when it comes to the Golan. There is no dispute about that. The idea that they can keep it forever is a dream.

The Syrians aren't going to go away; International law isn't going to go away. So unless you can guarantee that Syria is going to stay weak, Israel is going to remain strong and that Israel can resist whatever political pressure is brought to bear in support of Syria then you're a braver man than me. I think the tension between Turkey and Israel is only a precursor of things to come.



Comparing the GDR to the Golan Heights is like comparing apples and oranges.

Both we seized during defensive wars. Both were held and occupied for strategic reasons. I don't think they are that different. Russia had in fact greater justification. Eventually they had to hand it back.

Without giving back the Golan Israel will never have peace. And it's better to enter negotiations from a position of power than to let time slip and then find that the situation is not so favourable.

[dracon49]

You must at least accept that under international law nobody recognises Israels sovereignty over the Golan. Now you can dismiss it, but it's there, and isn't going to go away.

Would Russia be justified in keeping Germany?
After all, they spilled alot of blood there.
Who really cares about international law?? Its enough that most of the Israelis oppose to withdraw from the Golan, we dont need an international recognization.

[dracon49]

But you should simply because of the fact that Israel is a tiny nation that is not a superpower. Your approach relies on continued Israeli power in world that is changing rather quickly. I personally think its a flawed approach simply because unlike Israels right to exist, Israel is simply in the wrong when it comes to the Golan. There is no dispute about that. The idea that they can keep it forever is a dream.

The Syrians aren't going to go away; International law isn't going to go away. So unless you can guarantee that Syria is going to stay weak, Israel is going to remain strong and that Israel can resist whatever political pressure is brought to bear in support of Syria then you're a braver man than me. I think the tension between Turkey and Israel is only a precursor of things to come.
The size of a country doesnt say much..Israel is very tiny but has the capability to wipe all the ME in a very short time...so i dont think that mentioning our size has connection to the Golan..if we can stay on it or not(and for 42 years we are there and the annexation was from 1981 or somehthing like that).

[Estopped]

Who really cares about international law?? Its enough that most of the Israelis oppose to withdraw from the Golan, we dont need an international recognization.

The problem is that international law is going to become stronger and support for its enforcement will strengthen in future.

Simply brushing it off because it was acceptable up to now isn't going to change what is a significant shift in favour of it.

[Givati575]

Who really cares about international law?? Its enough that most of the Israelis oppose to withdraw from the Golan, we dont need an international recognization.

It's quite simple actually. Syria used the Golan to stage attacks on Israeli territory. In 1967 Israel took away Syrias ability to do so by conquering the Golan Heights. Israel will not risk this happening ever again therefore the Golan will always stay in Israels hands regardless of what ' international law ' states. So what if Israel did obey these laws and returned the Golan to Syria and then Syria again attacked Israel ? Nobody would care, and only Israel would be f*cked.

oh dracon btw im not arguing with you im just adding to what you said

[dracon49]

If we would abide to some crazy resolutions(like 194 but i dont remember if its A UNSC resolution or a UNGA resolution) Israel wouldnt exist and i wrote it to Estopped.

[manberries]

I don't know what news you have been watching, but international law is nothing but weaker every passing moment. International Law is not law. International Law is an agreement between sovereign nations to set certain restrictions on themselves and, for a major issues, on others. It is not a "law" because there is no body powerful enough to demand it be followed. Every international law is completely subject to the desire of the powerful states in the world to enforce it. The UN is a joke, and everyone knows it. This has left the world caring little about meetings there, and Israel has the support of most of the major nations. The US said it was Israeli land despite petty international law that tries to tell the world that you cannot actually gain land from war. With the US backing any of Israel's decisions regarding the Golan, and a total lack of major powers working against that, Israel has full control of the Golan. This is not an argument point. Israel can and will hold onto the Golan for as long as their government and people desire, or someone is powerful enough to kick that nuclear armed nation out of there. Israel controls the lands, and has the political, economic, and military power to state it is there land; therefore it is. Welcome to the reality of global politics. Funny, I don't see you arguing China's claim on Tibet or for that matter Nationalist China lands. Pretty interesting because in both cases China took those lands forcefully, and in Tibet's case they have no historic ownership of it. Hypocritical at best.

[Givati575]

I don't know what news you have been watching, but international law is nothing but weaker every passing moment. International Law is not law. International Law is an agreement between sovereign nations to set certain restrictions on themselves and, for a major issues, on others. It is not a "law" because there is no body powerful enough to demand it be followed. Every international law is completely subject to the desire of the powerful states in the world to enforce it. The UN is a joke, and everyone knows it. This has left the world caring little about meetings there, and Israel has the support of most of the major nations. The US said it was Israeli land despite petty international law that tries to tell the world that you cannot actually gain land from war. With the US backing any of Israel's decisions regarding the Golan, and a total lack of major powers working against that, Israel has full control of the Golan. This is not an argument point. Israel can and will hold onto the Golan for as long as their government and people desire, or someone is powerful enough to kick that nuclear armed nation out of there. Israel controls the lands, and has the political, economic, and military power to state it is there land; therefore it is. Welcome to the reality of global politics. Funny, I don't see you arguing China's claim on Tibet or for that matter Nationalist China lands. Pretty interesting because in both cases China took those lands forcefully, and in Tibet's case they have no historic ownership of it. Hypocritical at best.

well said.....and im sure we could conjure up 100's of examples of occupied lands around the world....yet people only seem to care about Israel Israel Israel

[dracon49]

Even if world powers would demand from us to leave the Golan-we would say "no!" and then-what would happen? They would attack us? highly unlikely ,because they dont give a **** on Syria and because it could lead to a nuke war . In the worst case they can impose sanctions.

[GiladS]

But you should simply because of the fact that Israel is a tiny nation that is not a superpower. Your approach relies on continued Israeli power in world that is changing rather quickly. I personally think its a flawed approach simply because unlike Israels right to exist, Israel is simply in the wrong when it comes to the Golan. There is no dispute about that.


And you are the one to decide what is wrong and what is right?

I'll let you in on a little secret, the so called 'international law' is only as strong as those willing to implement it.

Sure, a lot of countries may declare that they don't recognise Israel's right over the Golan but that is just rhetoric and that alone won't change facts on the ground.

And even if China will chose as a young superpower to back the Syrians on this issue, I don't think it will also go beyond rhetoric. And they themselves know this with their own experiance with Tibet.



The idea that they can keep it forever is a dream.


Zionism used to be a dream merely 100 years ago and now I live in the country which was the vision of those who dreamed back then.

So don't be too surprised if I chose to stick to my "dream".


The Syrians aren't going to go away; International law isn't going to go away. So unless you can guarantee that Syria is going to stay weak, Israel is going to remain strong and that Israel can resist whatever political pressure is brought to bear in support of Syria then you're a braver man than me.

We actually captured the Golan Heights when Syria was much stronger politically and militarily, so I think I can live even with your pessemistic prospects.


I think the tension between Turkey and Israel is only a precursor of things to come.

If Israel managed to overcome the crisis it had with France at the end of the 60s (hope you are aware of how important Franco-Israeli relations were back then) then I'm pretty sure it will survive the current crisis with Turkey.


Both we seized during defensive wars. Both were held and occupied for strategic reasons. I don't think they are that different. Russia had in fact greater justification.

Right... don't let the fact that the USSR had to devide a whole nation and create a proxy state get in the way of your comparison.

This while the Golan Heights is a small area with a small local population that doesn't actively oppose Israel's authority and is probably not interested in the return of Syrian rule.


Eventually they had to hand it back.

Of course they had to, the USSR was collapsing after all.


Without giving back the Golan Israel will never have peace. And it's better to enter negotiations from a position of power than to let time slip and then find that the situation is not so favourable.

Israel didn't have peace before it captured the Golan so why should we be so sure it will have peace after giving it up and returning to an inferior strategic position?

I'd rather take my chances with the Golan in our possesion.

[bbsh]

Without giving back the Golan Israel will never have peace. And it's better to enter negotiations from a position of power than to let time slip and then find that the situation is not so favourable.

Whats to say giving back the Golan will give Israel peace?

[Estopped]

And you are the one to decide what is wrong and what is right?

I'm only iterating what the international community has laid down. It is wrong according to the rules they set down. This is demonstrated by nobody recognising Israels claims to the Golan.


I'll let you in on a little secret, the so called 'international law' is only as strong as those willing to implement it.

International law doesn't have to be based on force. It can be coercive in non-violent means.

There's plenty of hypocricy in the world and nations far worse than Israel. But the problem that Israel has is that it has a broad network of countries that won't let the issue drop. They will plug and plug away each year until resolutions that previously weren't passable now start to get passed and accumulate diplomatic weight. To ignore it is to ignore a snowball as it rolls down the mountain.


Sure, a lot of countries may declare that they don't recognise Israel's right over the Golan but that is just rhetoric and that alone won't change facts on the ground.

It may not. But it also doesn't change the fact that nobody recognises Israels claim to the Golan.


And even if China will chose as a young superpower to back the Syrians on this issue, I don't think it will also go beyond rhetoric. And they themselves know this with their own experiance with Tibet.

Tibet was always part of China. The Golan was never apart of Israel. Not one nation recognises a sovereign tibet.


We actually captured the Golan Heights when Syria was much stronger politically and militarily, so I think I can live even with your pessemistic prospects.

And many people thought that the British empire would last forever. Even now the military power of Britain gets smaller each year.


If Israel managed to overcome the crisis it had with France at the end of the 60s (hope you are aware of how important Franco-Israeli relations were back then) then I'm pretty sure it will survive the current crisis with Turkey.

I'm only using Turkey to demonstrate that actions have consequences that Israel as a nation simply cannot control. Israel doesn't have the economic or diplomatic power to stop such a process happening. Even if you read the news you see things like the non-proliferation resolution, the goldstone report and boycotts of institutions on occupied territory. It's something that I would find as a leader in Israel as disturbing developments because they are actions that Israel has no say over.


Right... don't let the fact that the USSR had to devide a whole nation and create a proxy state get in the way of your comparison.

This while the Golan Heights is a small area with a small local population that doesn't actively oppose Israel's authority and is probably not interested in the return of Syrian rule.

Of course they had to, the USSR was collapsing after all.

The point was to demonstrate that things eventually return back to their natural order. Israel in order to gain peace will have to return the Golan. The question imo is whether they do this at the peak of their power or from a position of weakness.



Israel didn't have peace before it captured the Golan so why should we be so sure it will have peace after giving it up and returning to an inferior strategic position?

I'd rather take my chances with the Golan in our possesion.

Your choice. But in the longterm I think it's a folly.

[GiladS]

I'm only iterating what the international community has laid down. It is wrong according to the rules they set down. This is demonstrated by nobody recognising Israels claims to the Golan.


Still doesn't mean that Israel's claim on the Golan is wrong... only that there was enough lobbying power to push forward resolution 497.


International law doesn't have to be based on force. It can be coercive in non-violent means.

There's plenty of hypocricy in the world and nations far worse than Israel. But the problem that Israel has is that it has a broad network of countries that won't let the issue drop. They will plug and plug away each year until resolutions that previously weren't passable now start to get passed and accumulate diplomatic weight. To ignore it is to ignore a snowball as it rolls down the mountain.

Actually the status quo regarding the Golan has been well kept.

I as an Israeli don't feel that Israel is being pressured on this issue and doubt it will be.


Tibet was always part of China. The Golan was never apart of Israel. Not one nation recognises a sovereign tibet.

The Golan was without a doubt a part of past Jewish autonomies in the Land of Israel and is now so due to the simple fact that we Israelis consider it a part of Israel.

I recommend you do some reading about a place called Gamla.

As for Tibet... I'm not getting into this subject as it would be too off topic so I'll just quote you: "there's plenty of hypocricy in the world".


And many people thought that the British empire would last forever. Even now the military power of Britain gets smaller each year.

Again, apples and oranges.



I'm only using Turkey to demonstrate that actions have consequences that Israel as a nation simply cannot control. Israel doesn't have the economic or diplomatic power to stop such a process happening. Even if you read the news you see things like the non-proliferation resolution, the goldstone report and boycotts of institutions on occupied territory. It's something that I would find as a leader in Israel as disturbing developments because they are actions that Israel has no say over.




Knowing Israel's history, I won't claim that these things should not bother us. However they don't constitute a fundamental change.

We have had diplomatic crisis before and we have been condemned before... nothing new under the sun.


The point was to demonstrate that things eventually return back to their natural order. Israel in order to gain peace will have to return the Golan.

Geopolitics doesn't have a "natural order" my friend.

And again you seem to be very naive if you trully think that peace is a sure thing for Israel if it gives up the Golan Heights.

Israel was far from having peace before it captured the Golan so how exactly does that sit with your argument regarding a return to "natural order"?


The question imo is whether they do this at the peak of their power or from a position of weakness.

And what difference would it make?



Your choice. But in the longterm I think it's a folly.


And I think your arguments are simplistic and naive so I guess that's fair.

[LRPV]

You must at least accept that under international law nobody recognises Israels sovereignty over the Golan. Now you can dismiss it, but it's there, and isn't going to go away.

Would Russia be justified in keeping Germany?
After all, they spilled alot of blood there.


Please note that until 1968 capturing and keeping land in a defensive war was legal. The The situation changed AFTER Israel won a defensive war.

The Golan is legitimately Israeli.

Can we discuss territories held by the major powers?p-)

[Givati575]

Please note that until 1968 capturing and keeping land in a defensive war was legal. The The situation changed AFTER Israel won a defensive war.

The Golan is legitimately Israeli.

Can we discuss territories held by the major powers?p-)

first on our list.....we have Kashmir!!!! Occupied by...China, India and.....Pakistan!!!

[manberries]

Even if world powers would demand from us to leave the Golan-we would say "no!" and then-what would happen? They would attack us? highly unlikely ,because they dont give a **** on Syria and because it could lead to a nuke war . In the worst case they can impose sanctions.


True. You could say no. However, should the US stop funding a great deal of your yearly budget I think Israel would find itself in a much greater pinch than they have experienced since 49. I would not go so far as to say without international support that Israel could hold out by its lonesome. While "no country officially accepts Israeli claims on Golan", the US does in a defacto manner. Despite what recent political events may tell us, the US still supports Israel and has never been part of any drive to bring Israel out of the Golan.

As for the British Empire reference. This is just a lack of any logic. If your argument has reduced to the fact that there is a possibility that some day in an unknown future that the Muslim nations would out power the west, then you have lost. What we are discussing is the holding of the Golan during a reasonable time after today's date. Too much can happen in 100 years for it to be the basis of any argument. I do not care what happened to Rome, Britain, or any other example. History is not predefined (except on a quantum level) and it is just as likely for Israel to hold onto the Golan in 100 years as it is for them to lose it. This comes from the theory in statistics stating that the percent chance of an event taken over an extremely long period of time can never be predicted. As such, each event becomes equal in probability so long as the timescale is long enough. Combine this with Murphy's Law, and you see that despite the rule that every empire will fall, one must eventually last forever.

Finally. Tibet was not a part of China until Mao took over that area and the rest of modern day China. The first Chinese empire to own Tibet was the last of the Qing dynasty. Exactly how much of Tibet was theirs is a bit of historical debate, however the entire area remained in contest for a great period of time. This is one of those situations where a King claims it is his lands, but the people do not admit to it, noted by the extreme lack of tax income from that and a few other areas. With multiple conflicts with Russia and Britain, the Qing dynasty became weaker daily from 1690. The moment before the fall of the Qing dynasty (and the separation of China) the Emperor claimed all these lands as his. This is in despite of the truth that nearly every separate state in 1930 already separated at various intervals. Once again the desuire and defacto leader issues. Tibet was free until Mao reunited China. This is the first time in history that China has had full and total control over Tibetan lands and people.

[Givati575]

Finally. Tibet was not a part of China until Mao took over that area and the rest of modern day China. The first Chinese empire to own Tibet was the last of the Qing dynasty. Exactly how much of Tibet was theirs is a bit of historical debate, however the entire area remained in contest for a great period of time. This is one of those situations where a King claims it is his lands, but the people do not admit to it, noted by the extreme lack of tax income from that and a few other areas. With multiple conflicts with Russia and Britain, the Qing dynasty became weaker daily from 1690. The moment before the fall of the Qing dynasty (and the separation of China) the Emperor claimed all these lands as his. This is in despite of the truth that nearly every separate state in 1930 already separated at various intervals. Once again the desuire and defacto leader issues. Tibet was free until Mao reunited China. This is the first time in history that China has had full and total control over Tibetan lands and people.

thanks for the history lesson...

[manberries]

Sorry, I did not quote Estopped specifically saying Tibet was always part of China.

[Estopped]

As for the British Empire reference. This is just a lack of any logic. If your argument has reduced to the fact that there is a possibility that some day in an unknown future that the Muslim nations would out power the west, then you have lost.

It's not a lack of logic. It's about states at the apex of their power contracting to a natural size. Israeli society is only 60 years in the making. It's basically happened to most European countries and those countries such as Brazil, China, India, Russia are rising. They are basically filling out and assuming their natural role in the world.

It's got nothing to do with outpowering the west.



What we are discussing is the holding of the Golan during a reasonable time after today's date. Too much can happen in 100 years for it to be the basis of any argument. I do not care what happened to Rome, Britain, or any other example. History is not predefined (except on a quantum level) and it is just as likely for Israel to hold onto the Golan in 100 years as it is for them to lose it. This comes from the theory in statistics stating that the percent chance of an event taken over an extremely long period of time can never be predicted. As such, each event becomes equal in probability so long as the timescale is long enough. Combine this with Murphy's Law, and you see that despite the rule that every empire will fall, one must eventually last forever.
This is hogwash.

Israel could hold onto the Golan permanently. I just think that the circumstances leading to that would be inconsistent with historical events, current international rules and the size of Israel itself. Israel isn't China. They are not going to be an obstinate superpower who can defy the world. Just being a country of 7 million people doesn't allow for it.

[GB_FXST]

Please note that until 1968 capturing and keeping land in a defensive war was legal. The The situation changed AFTER Israel won a defensive war.

The Golan is legitimately Israeli.

Can we discuss territories held by the major powers?p-)

I believe that some international law experts and jurists still hold acquisition of land through a defensive war to be legal.

However, in regards to the Golan, I also believe that the official government position is acceptance of the principal set forth in UNSC 242: land is to be exchanged for peace.

At any rate, there is no doubt that criticism of Israel’s presence in the Golan (and the West Bank) is hypocritical (at best).

[RoyB]

I was cptivated by Golan since the very first time I travelled there.
Same here.
There is something about this beautiful, historic, piece of land.
I can't say I will be able to let it go if the day comes..

[Givati575]

Same here.
There is something about this beautiful, historic, piece of land.
I can't say I will be able to let it go if the day comes..

Im ready to fight for it.

[the_Wicked]

At any rate, Ha Am Im HaGolan (The People are with the Golan).

x2

Peace with Syria is not worth the Golan Heights (especially since it'll be an illusory peace).

[manberries]

It's not a lack of logic. It's about states at the apex of their power contracting to a natural size. Israeli society is only 60 years in the making. It's basically happened to most European countries and those countries such as Brazil, China, India, Russia are rising. They are basically filling out and assuming their natural role in the world.

It's got nothing to do with outpowering the west.

This is hogwash.

Israel could hold onto the Golan permanently. I just think that the circumstances leading to that would be inconsistent with historical events, current international rules and the size of Israel itself. Israel isn't China. They are not going to be an obstinate superpower who can defy the world. Just being a country of 7 million people doesn't allow for it.


So your argument is that despite all statistical realities, you say for sure that Israel can never stay the same size as it is? Do you somehow think the Golan Heights composes such a great deal of land to Israel? No one can say what the "natural" role of certain countries in the world is, nor can you prove Israel is "over stretched". Owning the Golan does not create an inherent problems with Israel. It can be defened, it's populous is not extremely rebellious, and it actually gives them a military positioning advantage on Syria. How about this idea that European countries are shrinking while other places in the world are growing? That is what is hogwash. Germany is nothing but more powerful than prior, and the West is suffering the economic hard times in an easier way than the rest of those countries you have mentioned. Russia has lost far more GDP than any major Euro country or the US. China is attempting to lie about it's situation, but they economy is dropping fast and hard. Proof resides in the fact that many rural Chinese hospitals and schools have closed outright. Finally, I have heard so much about Brazil. They were supposed to overtake the US economy back in the 80's. Brazil hit a plateau long ago and the oil reserves they have discovered wont change the fact that the majority of the country cannot be settled. Not to mention that oil revenue will make them dependent on the US market once again.

Also, if you believe the current population of Israel cannot hold onto the Golan heights when faced against Syria then you are delusional. The Crusader state held all of Israel for 100 years despite the entire Mid East fighting them all at once. With a pacified Saudi Arabia, an Iranian government pushing itself to destruction more and more, the poor nation of Syria only getting poorer, and the generally loss of the unified hatred for Israel that once existed means the threats against Israel compared to its military power just doesn't equal them losing Golan. If your argument is that the Mid East is on a unification slope, then you are outright wrong. The Mid East is historically ****e to infighting, and with a pro US country in the center of it all you will not see a unified front any time soon. As I proved before, statistically the length of time that it becomes any likely for Israel to lose the Golan is too far for us to say that it will happen, or that it will hurt Israel when it does happen. Nothing within a reasonable period of time states that Israel cannot hold the Golan, or that doing so will hurt Israel.

[gilgoul]

My very neighborhood, Beit Ha kerem, as well as all of west Jerusalem, the corridor leading to it, and of course most of the Shfela, Lachish and upper Galilee, are considered by the international comunity to be sovereign Israeli territory, even though they weren't part of the partition plan of 1947, and won during a defensive war.
something to meditate.

[gilgoul]

I just signed today with my wife for a plot of land on the Golan.
another 2 years max, and I'll open my B&B there.
Sweet.

[GB_FXST]

My very neighborhood, Beit Ha kerem, as well as all of west Jerusalem, the corridor leading to it, and of course most of the Shfela, Lachish and upper Galilee, are considered by the international comunity to be sovereign Israeli territory, even though they weren't part of the partition plan of 1947, and won during a defensive war.
something to meditate.

This is but one reason that lawfare presents such a serious threat to Israel.

If lawfare activists successfully subvert international law to force Israel to June 1967 borders, they will use the same strategy to force Israel to 1947 UN Partition Plan borders.



I just signed today with my wife for a plot of land on the Golan.
another 2 years max, and I'll open my B&B there.
Sweet.

Good Luck!.

[OrangeWolf]

I just signed today with my wife for a plot of land on the Golan.
another 2 years max, and I'll open my B&B there.
Sweet.

I sure hope I can come and visit, if you don't charge too much shekels

[Estopped]

So your argument is that despite all statistical realities, you say for sure that Israel can never stay the same size as it is?

Do you somehow think the Golan Heights composes such a great deal of land to Israel? No one can say what the "natural" role of certain countries in the world is, nor can you prove Israel is "over stretched". Owning the Golan does not create an inherent problems with Israel. It can be defened, it's populous is not extremely rebellious, and it actually gives them a military positioning advantage on Syria.

The reality is that there has been discussion about handing it back to Syria and not one nation recognises Israels sovereignty over it. It doesn't matter if Israel can defend it or whether its a strategic peace of land. Israel doesn't own the deed.


How about this idea that European countries are shrinking while other places in the world are growing? That is what is hogwash. Germany is nothing but more powerful than prior, and the West is suffering the economic hard times in an easier way than the rest of those countries you have mentioned. Russia has lost far more GDP than any major Euro country or the US. China is attempting to lie about it's situation, but they economy is dropping fast and hard. Proof resides in the fact that many rural Chinese hospitals and schools have closed outright. Finally, I have heard so much about Brazil. They were supposed to overtake the US economy back in the 80's. Brazil hit a plateau long ago and the oil reserves they have discovered wont change the fact that the majority of the country cannot be settled. Not to mention that oil revenue will make them dependent on the US market once again.

I used Britain as an example of a country that has contracted from the days of the empire. I think Israel is in a similar situation given the fact that it employs subscription and nearly 20% of its military budget comes from the US. Israeli society is only 60 years old and has demographic and water issues that don't exactly make for a pretty forecast.



Also, if you believe the current population of Israel cannot hold onto the Golan heights when faced against Syria then you are delusional. The Crusader state held all of Israel for 100 years despite the entire Mid East fighting them all at once. With a pacified Saudi Arabia, an Iranian government pushing itself to destruction more and more, the poor nation of Syria only getting poorer, and the generally loss of the unified hatred for Israel that once existed means the threats against Israel compared to its military power just doesn't equal them losing Golan. If your argument is that the Mid East is on a unification slope, then you are outright wrong. The Mid East is historically ****e to infighting, and with a pro US country in the center of it all you will not see a unified front any time soon. As I proved before, statistically the length of time that it becomes any likely for Israel to lose the Golan is too far for us to say that it will happen, or that it will hurt Israel when it does happen. Nothing within a reasonable period of time states that Israel cannot hold the Golan, or that doing so will hurt Israel.

I'm not saying Israel will lose it militarily or in conflict. I'm saying they will hand it back of their own free will. It doesn't belong to them and they will use it as a bargaining tool. When Israel and Syria attain peace the Golan will be handed back.

And if not there is always the scenario that political pressure will be exerted to a point where Israel will hurt itself strategically if it doesn't comply. And given the role of the US as a hyperpower weakening that isn't exactly such a far out scenario anymore.

[Givati575]

I'm not saying Israel will lose it militarily or in conflict. I'm saying they will hand it back of their own free will. It doesn't belong to them and they will use it as a bargaining tool. When Israel and Syria attain peace the Golan will be handed back.

And if not there is always the scenario that political pressure will be exerted to a point where Israel will hurt itself strategically if it doesn't comply. And given the role of the US as a hyperpower weakening that isn't exactly such a far out scenario anymore.


why are you SO confident that there will be peace with Syria if the Golan was returned? Was there peace with Lebanon when we pulled out in 2000? Was there peace with Gaza when we pulled out in 2005? So the trend says........NO there won't be peace.....just another HUGE loss and mistake for Israel. The world would sit down, ponder and find another way to get on our ass.......

[Estopped]

why are you SO confident that there will be peace with Syria if the Golan was returned? Was there peace with Lebanon when we pulled out in 2000? Was there peace with Gaza when we pulled out in 2005? So the trend says........NO there won't be peace.....just another HUGE loss and mistake for Israel. The world would sit down, ponder and find another way to get on our ass.......

Is there peace with Egypt or Jordan?

The future is not determined. I think once the Iran situation is determined there will be a an acceleration of diplomatic activity.

[GiladS]

Seems like the bill has made Assad feel uneasy...


Assad: Syria wants to resume peace talks

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740786847&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Hard to take such claims seriously when considering how much Assad's regime is entrenched in the Iran-Hamas-Hizbollah triangle.

The Alawite regime will always need Israel as an enemy in order to be on Iran's good side and to pacify the Sunni majority.

[Estopped]

Peace talks is a good step. But I don't think they will go far until the Iran situation is solved.

For at the moment any peace with Syria is dependent on them distancing themselves from Iran. And for Syria that is a step too far at the moment. I don't think peace will happen until the equilibrium in the middle east is found. Because at the moment its all in a flux.

[the_Wicked]

Is there peace with Egypt or Jordan?

Remind me what territory we ceded to Jordan for this peace exactly?

[NimDod]

Is there peace with Egypt or Jordan?

Yes and no.
a treaty was signed, but if real democratic election will be held in one of those countries, a Muslim Bros. party would probebly win and the treaty will not be worth the paper it was signed on.

When the dictaror will be replaced (democratically or not) and the people are still thought to see Israeli as an Enemy, than there wont be peace anymore, but the price that Israel paid will not be returned to it.

[Eye]

Yes and no.
a treaty was signed, but if real democratic election will be held in one of those countries, a Muslim Bros. party would probebly win and the treaty will not be worth the paper it was signed on.


Maybe democracy isn't a good solution. It's always easier to persuade one person than whole nation and one person is mostly more reasonable than whole crowd.

[NimDod]

Maybe democracy isn't a good solution. It's always easier to persuade one person than whole nation and one person is mostly more reasonable than whole crowd.

IMO peace should be between nations and not between the nation's rulers.

For example, Israel had great relations with Iran when the Shah was in power.

[OrangeWolf]

IMO peace should be between nations and not between the nation's rulers.

For example, Israel had great relations with Iran when the Shah was in power.

I read somewhere (sorry I cannot prove this) that over 40% of the Iranian youth want diplomatic/peaceful relationships with Israel. I think that's a high percentage for a country whose government stands on the forefront of spreading lies and hatred about Israel.

I always asked myself this question, and it is almost cliche to ask nowadays, why aren't Arab Muslims in the West out in the street protesting against their retarded and authoritarian governments back home. I see Tibetans do this, I see Iranians do this, but no Arab Muslims. Obviously they are overly represented when the Socialist Party is bashing Israel again being typical populists.

But then I knew the answer as I saw the news from Jordan. The only time they are really demonstrating.... is for the government to STOP BEING PEACEFUL. :cantbeli:These "peaceful" states do a lot to bash Israel, but bashing is better than what their subjects would rather do: killing.

[gilgoul]

Is there peace with Egypt or Jordan?

The future is not determined. I think once the Iran situation is determined there will be a an acceleration of diplomatic activity.

There is peace with governments, that maintained incitement or didn't prevent it thus preventing peace with the people.
It may be advantageous for all parties to maintain this situation of "hudna", but there is no doubt hostilities will eventually resume somaday unless serious reform is initiated .
Mubarak won't last forever, and Mubarak fils ain't the brightest star in the skies, while Hussein, who own his throne to the uk and USA, he has been showing worrisome shifts since Obama s election.

[Kaplanr]

Remind me what territory we ceded to Jordan for this peace exactly?

The catch is, we cede it to Jordan and then lease it back for 25 years with an option to renew. Here's the link to the NY Times article on the treaty from the perspective of the Arava Moshavniks. At the Jordan Border, Israeli Farmers Hail the Peace Accord
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/at-the-jordan-border-israeli-farmers-hail-the-peace-accord.html

From: http://www.meforum.org/241/thirty-years-of-clandestine-meetings
The negotiations finally concluded with an Israeli concession to Jordan of territory covering an area of more than 300 square kilometers in the southern Arava and an increase of 50 million cubic meters as Jordan's share of water drawn from the Sea of Galilee.7

Specifically some of the locations affected include Moshav Tzofar and Kibbutz yahel in the Arava, and Naharaim near the Sea of Galilee.

[GiladS]

Golan Referendum bill back on track to pass Knesset vote

By REBECCA ANNA STOIL (updates@jpost.com)

As early as Wednesday, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem Referendum Bill could return to the Knesset plenum for a key vote, after a late-night decision Tuesday by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation ensured coalition support for the controversial bill.


The bill passed its first reading during the previous Knesset, and was supposed to be submitted for its second and third readings on the first day of the Winter Session of the last Knesset, but the elections intervened.

When the Knesset reconvened, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation voted to revive the bill, but the controversial law stumbled along the way, when Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor submitted an appeal against the ministerial committee's previous decision to support the legislation.
Meridor complained that the law would tie the hands of the government in future peace negotiations, saying in the appeal that the bill would "add a harmful and unnecessary burden on the state of Israel, which will be seen as mounting hardships against any possible peace agreement."


MK Yariv Levine (Likud) who chairs the special committee tasked with preparing the legislation concerning national referenda, expressed confidence Tuesday evening that the bill would garner wide-reaching support in the Knesset. Although at its inception, the bill was widely seen as a stop-gap effort to block then-prime minister Ehud Olmert from giving up the Golan Heights as part of a Syrian peace deal, its original sponsors included two Kadima MKs. Now, it is highly likely that a number of opposition members, including some Kadima MKs, will also vote in favor of the bill.

Likud officials denied any connection between the bill and announcements Monday by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he was prepared to renew talks with Syria.
The bill would require that any return of land under administration and judicial authority of the State of Israel pass a national referendum as well as a government decision and Knesset approval. The bill does, however, offer the government a way out - in the event that the concession passes the Knesset by a two-thirds majority or in a case when within 180 days after the Knesset okays the government decision, a general election for the Knesset is held.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260181023952&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Dexx]

Since WW2 it is forbidden under international law to annex foreign territory by force. It is not forbidden to excerise govermental power over a territory for a certain amount of time until an agreement is reached. It is quite debatable if Israel must give it back under current circumstances. It is not an easy "yes" or "no" answer.

[GB_FXST]

Since WW2 it is forbidden under international law to annex foreign territory by force. It is not forbidden to excerise govermental power over a territory for a certain amount of time until an agreement is reached. It is quite debatable if Israel must give it back under current circumstances. It is not an easy "yes" or "no" answer.

To be a bit more precise, Israel is not obligate to return the Golan until such time as a peace deal - wholly acceptable to Israel - is reached with Syria. Israel's means of determining whether or not that proposed peace deal is an internal matter.

[Moledet]

Since WW2 it is forbidden under international law to annex foreign territory by force. It is not forbidden to excerise govermental power over a territory for a certain amount of time until an agreement is reached. It is quite debatable if Israel must give it back under current circumstances. It is not an easy "yes" or "no" answer.
Nothing debatable about it.
It is clearly written in the UNSC resolution that the land will be returned according to the agreement after it is reached between the two countries. If there's no agreement than the land or part of it isn't going to be returned.

[Dexx]

Nothing debatable about it.
It is clearly written in the UNSC resolution that the land will be returned according to the agreement after it is reached between the two countries. If there's no agreement than the land or part of it isn't going to be returned.

It is debatable (imo) wether the exercise of govermental power over a very long period of time constitutes a hidden annexation of the territory in question without an actual declaration.

[GB_FXST]

It is debatable (imo) wether the exercise of govermental power over a very long period of time constitutes a hidden annexation of the territory in question without an actual declaration.

The issue of annexation (de jure or de facto) is irrelevant until a peace treaty is established.

[gilgoul]

Since WW2 it is forbidden under international law to annex foreign territory by force. It is not forbidden to excerise govermental power over a territory for a certain amount of time until an agreement is reached. It is quite debatable if Israel must give it back under current circumstances. It is not an easy "yes" or "no" answer.

It's a bit ridiculous to have such claim, since, first of all, post WW2 saw the biggest territorial and population shuffle in Europe (Germany loosing territories, Poland, czechoslovakia, and even France regaining some)
12 million persons displaced immediately after WW2 in Europe only, etc...

Secondly, if one is to take the stance of legality only, then again the Golan belongs to Israel, since it was part of the "Palestine Mandate", as well as Jordan BTW, Palestine mandate validated by the League of Nations in 1920, with the specific purpose of the application of the Balfour declaration of 1917.

Of course, Britain violated the letter and the spirit of this mandate by cutting it, the Golan part joining the French Mandatory area (what was to become Syria and Lebanon) while the east Bank of the Jordan river would become the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan.
BTW, by doing so, the UK violated specifically article 5 of the LoN mandate, as well as it's art. 27.

Keeping in "legalism", the UN, when it succeeded the LoN, inherited it's validation of the Mandate, so, legally speaking, it should have been the warrant of the application of the first letter of the mandate.

[Dexx]

The issue of annexation (de jure or de facto) is irrelevant until a peace treaty is established.

Nope, the annexation would contradict treaty law (Art 2 UN Charta) and customary international law (UN Charta itself). You can even argue that the occupation of the Golan heights wasn't an act of defense but aggression and thus would be prohibited by ius cogens.

After having read on here about a UN Security Council resolution that only requires Israel to withdraw from the Golan heights after a peace agreement I have searched the web for it but could only come up with the following resolution: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un497.htm

What resolution do you refer to? The above mentioned one declares Israels occupation illegal and void.

[GB_FXST]

Nope, the annexation would contradict treaty law (Art 2 UN Charta) and customary international law (UN Charta itself). You can even argue that the occupation of the Golan heights wasn't an act of defense but aggression and thus would be prohibited by ius cogens.

... snip ...



This would be a most disquieting revision and distortion of history.





... snip ...

After having read on here about a UN Security Council resolution that only requires Israel to withdraw from the Golan heights after a peace agreement I have searched the web for it but could only come up with the following resolution: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un497.htm

... snip ...



UNSC 497 was issued as a result of Israel's annexation of the Golan and does alter UNSC 242. It is declaring the annexation void. It does not address Israel's presence in the Golan.

UNSC 497 is not binding on Israel as it was not issued under Chapter VII.





... snip ...

What resolution do you refer to? The above mentioned one declares Israels occupation illegal and void.

UNSC 242.

[Dexx]

UNSC 242.

Thank you, from the text itself it is not clear wether the resolution meant an immediate withdrawal or a subsequent one after a peace agreement is reached. The first paragraphs support the aforementioned interpretation ("commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter"). The latter interpretation is supported by the inclusion of the withdrawal into the sentence that deals with the lasting peace agreement.


Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

[GB_FXST]

Thank you, from the text itself it is not clear wether the resolution meant an immediate withdrawal or a subsequent one after a peace agreement is reached. The first paragraphs support the aforementioned interpretation ("commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter"). The latter interpretation is supported by the inclusion of the withdrawal into the sentence that deals with the lasting peace agreement.


You are welcome.

Israel is committed to the land for peace principle set forth in UNSC 242.

[RoyB]

while the east Bank of the Jordan river would become the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan.
Which was actually land that belonged to Rothschild.

[GiladS]

Knesset votes in favor of 'Golan bill'

By REBECCA ANNA STOIL AND JPOST.COM STAFF (editors@jpost.com)

The Knesset voted Wednesday afternoon in favor of continuing legislation on the Golan Heights and Jerusalem Referendum Bill (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260181024869&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), by an overwhelming majority of 68 to 22, with one abstention.

The referendum bill stipulates that any withdrawal from east Jerusalem, the Golan or another area which under Israeli sovereignty would first have to be approved by the majority of the Israeli public. The vote crossed coalition-opposition lines, with over one-third of Kadima MKs supporting the bill, but with the majority of Labor ministers conspicuously absent from the vote.

Despite voicing reservations shortly before the vote, Labor party chairman Ehud Barak voted in favor of the controversial bill.


"The bill isn't necessary for two reasons: first, it imposes additional constraints on the prime minister and those responsible for negotiations with Syria, which are important to Israel," he told the Knesset plenum during a discussion on the proposed law. "A law like this also gives a bad impression to the world, as though Israel does not want peace."
The second reason, continued Barak, is that "a referendum is a complicated constitutional matter, which stands to block progress."


Opposition and Kadima leader Tzipi Livni voted against the bill, saying that the people of Israel could not make decisions in place of the government they themselves had elected.

The bill passed its first reading during the previous Knesset, and was supposed to be submitted for its second and third readings on the first day of the winter session of the last Knesset, but the elections intervened.

When the Knesset reconvened in the spring, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation voted to revive the bill, but the bill's progress was blocked when Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor appealed the ministerial committee's previous decision to support the legislation.

Meridor complained that the law would tie the hands of the government in future peace negotiations, saying in the appeal that the bill would "add a harmful and unnecessary burden to the State of Israel, which will be seen as mounting obstacles against any possible peace agreement."
On Tuesday evening, the committee ruled by a vote of 5-2 to reject Meridor's appeal, enabling the bill to return to the Knesset floor for a vote to renew the legislative process and continue with preparations for its second and third readings.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260181031697&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull




Wasn't aware that this bill is also over Jerusalem... good to hear.

[gilgoul]

Anyway, after what is going on in Egypt, only a fool would get us to relinquish what is the last remaining strategic asset gained during 6DW.
Comparatively speeking, the Syrian border has been quieter, the relations better and the international price lower than the Egyptian one, who merely accepted the "peace" for a multibillion dollars bribe.
The recipe, we don't **** around with Syria, and each provocation is met by harsh Israeli response, It is called DETERRENCE.

[Givati575]

Anyway, after what is going on in Egypt, only a fool would get us to relinquish what is the last remaining strategic asset gained during 6DW.
Comparatively speeking, the Syrian border has been quieter, the relations better and the international price lower than the Egyptian one, who merely accepted the "peace" for a multibillion dollars bribe.
The recipe, we don't **** around with Syria, and each provocation is met by harsh Israeli response, It is called DETERRENCE.

Nukes are the only deterrence.

[gilgoul]

Nukes are the only deterrence.

Tell that to Bashar

[GB_FXST]

Nukes are the only deterrence.

No, nuclear weapons are not deterring Assad Jr. from a limited to war to capture the Golan. He is well aware that the loss of just the Golan is not a nuclear trip-wire.

What may be one of a number of deterring factors is Syrian recognition that a limited war to capture just the Golan could be misread by Israel as an existential threat, which could easily escalate out of control.

[Givati575]

Tell that to Bashar

Oh, I think he's well aware of what we can do to him and his country if he tries anything. Nuclear deterrence baby.

Going a little off topic but the full might of the IDF hasn't been unleashed since 82. Nobody knows what we're capable of.

[Givati575]

No, nuclear weapons are not deterring Assad Jr. from a limited to war to capture the Golan. He is well aware that the loss of the Golan is not a nuclear trip-wire.

What may be a deterring factor is Syrian recognition that a limited war to capture just the Golan could be misread by Israel as an existential threat, which could easily escalate out of control.

Exactly what I was mentioning at the end of my previous post. You guys really haven't learned my sense of humor yet eh, guess i'll need to get some new material.

[GB_FXST]

Exactly what I was mentioning at the end of my previous post. You guys really haven't learned my sense of humor yet eh, guess i'll need to get some new material.

Could be that my sarcasm meter is off.

Anyhow, I agree with the larger point that the latest turmoil in Egypt puts the future of all negotiated peace agreements in jeopardy. Land for peace may have died with Mubarak's resignation.

[Givati575]

Could be that my sarcasm meter is off.

Anyhow, I agree with the larger point that the latest turmoil in Egypt puts the future of all negotiated peace agreements in jeopardy. Land for peace may have died with Mubarak's resignation.

You're saying it as if it's a bad thing.

[tanks_alot]

Anyway, after what is going on in Egypt, only a fool would get us to relinquish what is the last remaining strategic asset gained during 6DW.
Comparatively speeking, the Syrian border has been quieter, the relations better and the international price lower than the Egyptian one, who merely accepted the "peace" for a multibillion dollars bribe.
The recipe, we don't **** around with Syria, and each provocation is met by harsh Israeli response, It is called DETERRENCE.

I would wait a few years for the dust to settle before passing judgment on the situation with Egypt, although i agree that how said situation will develop, will have huge implications on how Israel percieves it's relations with it's neighbours. however, don't fool yourself.

Deterrence? Syria is fighting Israel by proxy for decades, now. bleeding Israel with almost zero consequences for Syria itself. and the reason Israel was able to allocate enough resources to those fronts, is because it didn't have to worry about the Egyptian front - which was always the most dangerous one.

And not only that, but Egypt even cooperated with the Israeli policy regarding the Gaza Strip (although they certainly dragged their feet on the matter), while Syria is doing it's best to inflaming the area. (the Hamas and Islamic Jihad's HQs are both in Damascus, but yeah, the Syrians are terrified of us...)

[Givati575]

I would wait a few years for the dust to settle before passing judgment on the situation with Egypt, although i agree that how said situation will develop, will have huge implications on how Israel percieves it's relations with it's neighbours. however, don't fool yourself.

Deterrence? Syria is fighting Israel by proxy for decades, now. bleeding Israel with almost zero consequences for Syria itself. and the reason Israel was able to allocate enough resources to those fronts, is because it didn't have to worry about the Egyptian front - which was always the most dangerous one.

And not only that, but Egypt even cooperated with the Israeli policy regarding the Gaza Strip (although they certainly dragged their feet on the matter), while Syria is doing it's best to inflaming the area. (the Hamas and Islamic Jihad's HQs are both in Damascus, but yeah, the Syrians are terrified of us...)

Israel is successfully deterring a conventional war with Syria which led them to fight us with proxy armies and tactics.

[GB_FXST]

You're saying it as if it's a bad thing.

Yes and No. In some ways the passing of the idea of land for peace is a very good thing. But, the loss of Camp David I would be a bad thing.

But actually, I tried to be emotionally neutral in my response .. .oh well.

[Givati575]

Yes and No. In some ways the passing of the idea of land for peace is a very good thing. But, the loss of Camp David I would be a bad thing.

But actually, I tried to be emotionally neutral in my response .. .oh well.

Land for peace 20 years ago maybe. Today it's a joke.