View Full Version : Syria: Israel will leave Golan Heights
Syria: Israel will leave Golan Heights (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3149913,00.html)
Damascus Radio, a mouthpiece for government positions, says, ‘What happened in south Lebanon and Gaza will happen in the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Jerusalem; Syria will eventually gain full control over the Golan Heights, even if the process will be long and difficult’
Roee Nahmias
The Israeli withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon prove that even though Israel can achieve military victories and conquer Arab lands, it will eventually succumb to the (Arab) public’s will, Damascus Radio, a mouthpiece for government positions, said.
The remarks came in response to Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz’s recent statement whereby the Golan Heights would remain under Israeli control forever.
Damascus Radio operates on behalf of President Bashar Assad’s regime, and its programming is authorized and encouraged the government.
“What happened in south Lebanon and Gaza will happen in the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Jerusalem,” remarks aired on the station said.
“The Golan Heights will be Arab and Syrian, and Syria will eventually gain full control over the region, even if the process will be long and difficult.”
Rakki
10-02-2005, 01:12 AM
.....What's the population on the Golan Heights like?
RavenW
10-02-2005, 01:24 AM
“The Golan Heights will be Arab and Syrian, and Syria will eventually gain full control over the region, even if the process will be long and difficult.”
difficult for whom - for Syria? Or for hundreds of Israeli women and children whom Arab terrorists plan to murder in the name of their jihad?
SeanAshi
10-02-2005, 05:26 AM
.....What's the population on the Golan Heights like?
I think there are around 20,000 settlers. If you think moving 8,000 from Gaza was dificult just imagne moving 20,000.
Well no..most of the people in the Golan are Left wing, with all the Kibuzim and stuff.
Anyway it's a diffrend case since no way the Israeli public whould support that kind of plan. to withraw from the Golan.
And if if we whould..i think it's the end of Israel and i whouldn't want any realtionship with that country.
The Syrians are freaking mad if they think that they can start a campaign similar to the terror campaign in Gaza and Lebanon. There's no pro-Syrian population in the Golan heights, so they won't be able to stir **** from the inside like in Lebanon or Gaza. And if they think that they can start a mini-war at the Golan - well, the IAF has made some flights over Assad's palace a few months ago, I figure that this time the flights might as well get effective.
Moledet
10-02-2005, 09:41 AM
No one in Israel thinks of giving away the Golan hights, except of the Arabs.
The water are too important in the ME, so we can't let anyone control the water supply into the Kineret lake.
b.scheller
10-02-2005, 12:51 PM
What good is that going to do? Syria does not have a stable government, they can't even control of who does what within their state. I wouldn't be surprised, that if the Golan Hieghts go, mortar and rockets attack will still continue, but this time hitting further inside Israel.
PELASGOS
10-02-2005, 01:56 PM
The Syrians discovered creative visualisation :lol:
Telnyashka
10-02-2005, 02:13 PM
I think that Golan Heights should be given back to Syria simply because it was part of the peace plan, yet still not implemented.
Miles.
10-02-2005, 02:20 PM
I think that Golan Heights should be given back to Syria simply because I oppose Israel and the United States.
Fixed. :bash:
Telnyashka
10-02-2005, 02:23 PM
I think that Golan Heights should be given back to Syria simply because I oppose Israel and the United States.
Fixed. :bash:
Thats not true at all. I support different things regarding USA and Israel and oppose others. I will not be labelled as "pro-US" or "anti-US" as I agree and disagree with other things.
You're retarded if you have already made up your mind on a subject before even reading it just because you are "pro-US" or "anti-US"
Miles.
10-02-2005, 02:26 PM
I think that Golan Heights should be given back to Syria simply because I oppose Israel and the United States.
Fixed. :bash:
Thats not true at all. I support different things regarding USA and Israel and oppose others. I will not be labelled as "pro-US" or "anti-US" as I agree and disagree with other things.
You're retarded if you have already made up your mind on a subject before even reading it just because you are "pro-US" or "anti-US"
Agreed.
Telnyashka
10-02-2005, 02:28 PM
That's good that we could agree on something. I know people here feel threatened by people talking back against US policy but I am sorry, I am simply speaking my mind. There are things I agree and disagree with in many aspects and I hope you can stop labelling me a "islamic terrorist" or a "US basher".
Tielir999
10-02-2005, 02:34 PM
blah blah blah[/quote]
sickofpretenders
10-02-2005, 02:36 PM
If you stopped insisting we dont call terrorists, terrorists and throwing inflammatory anti US remarks into every post maybe people like me will stop calling you terrorist and US basher.
b.scheller
10-02-2005, 02:41 PM
If you stopped insisting we dont call terrorists, terrorists and throwing inflammatory anti US remarks into every post maybe people like me will stop calling you terrorist and US basher.
Just to add, to your comment. I seriously, don't understand why he even bothers to post. He neither argues, nor defends his viewpoints, and most of his posts are like this. He just makes short remarks, that do not add anything to the discussion.
He posts, for the sake of posting.
Telnyashka
10-02-2005, 02:50 PM
If you stopped insisting we dont call terrorists, terrorists and throwing inflammatory anti US remarks into every post maybe people like me will stop calling you terrorist and US basher.
*sigh*...
I try to explain, and I have argued my point many times. I insist that we dont call every single insurgent in Iraq a terrorist, THATS WHAT I INSIST.
Not eveyr insurgent in Iraq is a terrorist, alright? So when they say 40 insurgents dead I dont cheer and jeer and call them "terrorists" because I dont know that, they could be insurgents...
this is the 3rd time I had to explain this.
sickofpretenders
10-02-2005, 02:55 PM
Oh OK. So if we all just do what you say then you will start talking sense? I INIST on calling anyone who kills or tries to kill my friends and I anything I want to and if that bothers a couple of ignorant left leaning kids who have never stepped into the world so be it.
Apologies for hijacking the thread.
Telnyashka
10-02-2005, 03:03 PM
Oh OK. So if we all just do what you say then you will start talking sense? I INIST on calling anyone who kills or tries to kill my friends and I anything I want to and if that bothers a couple of ignorant left leaning kids who have never stepped into the world so be it.
Apologies for hijacking the thread.
I dont understand... Im not being sarcastic, I just didnt understand your post...Apologies, could you re word it please?
sir-chimp
10-02-2005, 03:10 PM
Not all child molesters commit anal rape on their victims - but they are still guilty of being child molesters.
Telnyashka
10-02-2005, 03:13 PM
Not all child molesters commit anal rape on their victims - but they are still guilty of being child molesters.
ah so Insurgents fighting American soldiers are evil? They have every right to do so.
sir-chimp
10-02-2005, 03:19 PM
Not all child molesters commit anal rape on their victims - but they are still guilty of being child molesters.
ah so Insurgents fighting American soldiers are evil? They have every right to do so.
Since when did the targeting of Iraq civilians by your so called insurgents become fighting Coalition Soldiers?
sickofpretenders
10-02-2005, 03:34 PM
Not all child molesters commit anal rape on their victims - but they are still guilty of being child molesters.
ah so Insurgents fighting American soldiers are evil? They have every right to do so.
Its dumbass cracks like the above that earn you names you dont like being called.
Why do you believe the isurgents have the right to kill Americans you asshole? So they can impose a brutal islamic based dictatorship of thier own design onto all the people of iraq?
Which terrorists have the most right to kill Americans (and civilians) the sunni based ones, or the shi'ites? They arent all fighting together for a free iraq, they are fighting each other and the coalition for a chance to rule completely over every man woman and child in the country!
So tell me you terrorist loving peice of crap: How the hell do they have every right to do so?
Miles.
10-02-2005, 03:52 PM
That's good that we could agree on something. I know people here feel threatened by people talking back against US policy but I am sorry, I am simply speaking my mind. There are things I agree and disagree with in many aspects and I hope you can stop labelling me a "islamic terrorist" or a "US basher".
I was just putting words in your mouth...that's all. ;)
That's good that we could agree on something. I know people here feel threatened by people talking back against US policy but I am sorry, I am simply speaking my mind. There are things I agree and disagree with in many aspects and I hope you can stop labelling me a "islamic terrorist" or a "US basher".
Well, to date its been all disagree ;)
Telnyashka
10-02-2005, 07:42 PM
Not all child molesters commit anal rape on their victims - but they are still guilty of being child molesters.
ah so Insurgents fighting American soldiers are evil? They have every right to do so.
Since when did the targeting of Iraq civilians by your so called insurgents become fighting Coalition Soldiers?
Those are terrorists. I am referring to insurgents who only target coalition soldiers.
also sickofpretenders, No I don't think they should kill American soldiers, however I am looking from their perspective. It's easy for us to explain and say how silly it is to fight when they are tyring to help, but these insurgents were raised in a world where America is the great satan. I cant blame them for how they were raised.
PeterRJG
10-03-2005, 02:09 AM
Not all child molesters commit anal rape on their victims - but they are still guilty of being child molesters.
ah so Insurgents fighting American soldiers are evil? They have every right to do so.
Even if they're foreign and not Iraqi's? Which, apparently, most of them are.
sickofpretenders
10-03-2005, 03:37 AM
johnnycab, you act like the great crusader for accuracy, good reference and facts and yet you say most insurgents are foreign? The general estimates are between 4 and 10%, some say a little higher. Hardly 'most'.
Telnyashka, you act like you have this unique but correct view when you consider the terrorists views, but all you are doing in driveling crap. You have a one sided immature view on the terrorist perspective and have no idea what is going on in iraq. There are many different reasons people decide to attack local civilians and American soldiers. Some differentiate, some dont, some have a cause, some dont, some are willing to die or risk dying, some dont. You cant get into the mindset of every insurgent and relate to him. Many suicide bombers only do so as they and their family will be murdered if they dont aggree to drive a car at a checkpoint or conoy. What gives the insurgents the rights to do that to a man? how is that acceptable in any culture?,to hold a mans family and threaten to kill them if he wont kill himself when you are to cowardly to drive an SVBIED yourself? You have no idea what is going on, not what the people are thinking or their motives, so you just speculate and say its ok to want to kill americans because they were raised poorly! Thats pathetic.
a_very_ex_STAB
10-03-2005, 05:35 AM
In an attempt to get this back on topic.
I thought the Golan Heights were (are) legally part of Syria? Surely this will mean at some point in the future any settlement/peace deal between Israel and Syria will have to include their return.
Mr. Nielsen
10-03-2005, 06:32 AM
Golan is Syrian territory, period.
Israel has in fact "annexed" the Golan heights in the eighties. :lol:
The annexation is recognized by the same number of other countries, that recognized Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in 1990.
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
a_very_ex_STAB
10-03-2005, 07:12 AM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
gilgoul
10-03-2005, 08:57 AM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
There I have to disagree, as much as there is controversy over judea and samaria (the gaza issue has been "solved" for a while), there is a complete lack of argument over the destiny of Golan in israel, apart from some left wing nutcases and a part of the arab sector. Peace with Syria isn't worth the Golan for now. The Baasist regime still represent a threat, and its propaganda is the harchest and most antisemitic of the middle east, competing to a good level with the one of Iran.
Frankly, the day her majesty will relinquish English domination of Northen Ireland and Scotland , conquered as you might remember, will I consider your pro bono comments on the morality of holding territories aquired by means of war. Waiting for that, i'll be happy to settle, improve and develop an area not only of strategic value but also that deserves better than being ruled by one of the most ruthless dictatorship still present in the Middle East, that did nothing better than using it as a firing platform against peacefull agricultural settlements when it was holding it.
a_very_ex_STAB
10-03-2005, 09:05 AM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
There I have to disagree, as much as there is controversy over judea and samaria (the gaza issue has been "solved" for a while), there is a complete lack of argument over the destiny of Golan in israel, apart from some left wing nutcases and a part of the arab sector. Peace with Syria isn't worth the Golan for now. The Baasist regime still represent a threat, and its propaganda is the harchest and most antisemitic of the middle east, competing to a good level with the one of Iran.
Frankly, the day her majesty will relinquish English domination of Northen Ireland and Scotland , conquered as you might remember, will I consider your pro bono comments on the morality of holding territories aquired by means of war. Waiting for that, i'll be happy to settle, improve and develop an area not only of strategic value but also that deserves better than being ruled by one of the most ruthless dictatorship still present in the Middle East, that did nothing better than using it as a firing platform against peacefull agricultural settlements when it was holding it.
But would you give it back to Syria if the Baathist regime was gone as part of a wider peace deal?
As for NI if the majority of people there want to join the Irish Republic that shouldn't be a problem (they don't at the moment). It's also debatable as to whether a majority of people in the Irish Republic want the problem ;)
As for the supposed English domination of Scotland you only need to take a look at current politics in the UK to know that if anything it is the other way round as the Scots are significantly over-represented in Government and get a significantly higher amount of Government spending per head of population than England and Wales.
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
Gaza and Golan are a totaly different case :
First, because in Golan, there aren't 1.5 million people like in Gaza but barely 20 thousands peaceful druzes (they are outnumbered by israeli who settled there after 1967) so there isn't any demographic and security problem which were the main reasons behind the disengagement of Gaza.
Second, because 25% of Israel's water supply comes from the Golan, compared to Gaza and Sinai which are completely arid. Without Golan, Israel runs dry. An independant water supply is more important that a "peace treaty" especially in the arid ME.
Third, Golan is a tiny strategic zone, mountainous area which controled the Galillee, Lebanon and Syria. Israel's control of the area permitted to avoid any future invasion from Syria (they can always stab us in the back even with a "peace treaty").
US annexed Texas from Mexico because they won, Israel did the same with Golan . Didn't UK annexed Scotland? Can you tell me a country who didn't annex anything by force in its history (except micronesia ;) ).
The winner decides, the looser doesn't...
:petting:
a_very_ex_STAB
10-03-2005, 09:44 AM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
Gaza and Golan are a totaly different case :
First, because in Golan, there aren't 1.5 million people like in Gaza but barely 20 thousands peaceful druzes (they are outnumbered by israeli who settled there after 1967) so there isn't any demographic and security problem which were the main reasons behind the disengagement of Gaza.
Second, because 25% of Israel's water supply comes from the Golan, compared to Gaza and Sinai which are completely arid. Without Golan, Israel runs dry. An independant water supply for a Nation is more important that a peace treaty especially in the arid ME.
Third, Golan is a tiny strategic zone, mountainous area which controled the Galillee, Lebanon and Syria. Israel's control of the area permitted to avoid any future invasion from Syria (they can always stab us in the back even with a "peace treaty").
US annexed Texas from Mexico because they won, Israel did the same with Golan . Didn't UK annexed Scotland? Can you tell me a country who didn't annex anything by force in its history (except micronesia ;) ).
The winner decides, the looser shuts the f*ck up.
:petting:
Well don't start complaining to the ROW about lack of peace in the region / terrorist attacks etc then because you won't have any realistic chance of peace until you give it back. :roll:
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
Unlike the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights were annexed to Israel over 20 years ago.
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
Gaza and Golan are a totaly different case :
First, because in Golan, there aren't 1.5 million people like in Gaza but barely 20 thousands peaceful druzes (they are outnumbered by israeli who settled there after 1967) so there isn't any demographic and security problem which were the main reasons behind the disengagement of Gaza.
Second, because 25% of Israel's water supply comes from the Golan, compared to Gaza and Sinai which are completely arid. Without Golan, Israel runs dry. An independant water supply for a Nation is more important that a peace treaty especially in the arid ME.
Third, Golan is a tiny strategic zone, mountainous area which controled the Galillee, Lebanon and Syria. Israel's control of the area permitted to avoid any future invasion from Syria (they can always stab us in the back even with a "peace treaty").
US annexed Texas from Mexico because they won, Israel did the same with Golan . Didn't UK annexed Scotland? Can you tell me a country who didn't annex anything by force in its history (except micronesia ;) ).
The winner decides, the looser shuts the f*ck up.
:petting:
Well don't start complaining to the ROW about lack of peace in the region / terrorist attacks etc then because you won't have any realistic chance of peace until you give it back. :roll:
Israel has been facing terrorism since before 1967, so don't try to force feed that rubbish.
Well don't start complaining to the ROW about lack of peace in the region / terrorist attacks etc then because you won't have any realistic chance of peace until you give it back. :roll:
"Without hurting the Arab world, it must be established that their agreements, declarations, and speeches are not worth the paper they were printed on"
Ariel Sharon
a_very_ex_STAB
10-03-2005, 10:45 AM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
You also did the same for Sinai, Gaza and Southern Lebanon but you've handed those back. The Syrians died for it too remember and it is theirs after all.
Unlike the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights were annexed to Israel over 20 years ago.
'Annexation' means nothing it is a one-sided act.
Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait.
Argentina annexed the Falkland Islands.
Nazi Germany annexed the Sudetenland.
None of those annexations mean't anything in the longterm.
'Annexation' means nothing it is a one-sided act.
Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait.
Argentina annexed the Falkland Islands.
Nazi Germany annexed the Sudetenland.
None of those annexations mean't anything in the longterm.
You conveniently bring forth examples of annexations that didn't last more than ten years (the first two didn't last more than several months), what about those that have lasted? If I'm not mistaken, Wales was annexed to the English Crown back in the 14th century.
Also all the examples you have presented are of annexations carried out by non-Democratic regimes (which is not the case with Israel).
Israel has had control over the Golan Heights for the past 37 years and had annexed it over 24 years ago. Is that long term enough? :)
Mr. Nielsen
10-03-2005, 12:22 PM
Also all the examples you have presented are of annexations carried out by non-Democratic regimes (which is not the case with Israel).
When a democracy does something wrong, it just means that there is a higher degree of personal guilt with the individual citizens compared to actions of a dictatorship.
Israel has had control over the Golan Heights for the past 37 years and had annexed it over 24 years ago. Is that long term enough? :)
Apparently not. No one has recognized it yet.
a_very_ex_STAB
10-03-2005, 12:23 PM
'Annexation' means nothing it is a one-sided act.
Saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait.
Argentina annexed the Falkland Islands.
Nazi Germany annexed the Sudetenland.
None of those annexations mean't anything in the longterm.
You conveniently bring forth examples of annexations that didn't last more than ten years (the first two didn't last more than several months), what about those that have lasted? If I'm not mistaken, Wales was annexed to the English Crown back in the 14th century.
Also all the examples you have presented are of annexations carried out by non-Democratic regimes (which is not the case with Israel).
Israel has had control over the Golan Heights for the past 37 years and had annexed it over 24 years ago. Is that long term enough? :)
37 or 24 years is not long in historical terms but that's just my opinion ;)
Yes I chose examples that were relatively short-lived. But that was precisely my point that annexation is not necessarily for ever.
BTW it is nice to be able to debate these things with an Israeli without any name calling going on.
Clarsachier
10-03-2005, 01:32 PM
The British occupation of Ireland lasted 1000 years.
And it hasn't worked out yet.
p-)
a_very_ex_STAB
10-03-2005, 01:55 PM
The British occupation of Ireland lasted 1000 years.
And it hasn't worked out yet.
p-)
IIRC it started as a Norman invasion, like the invasion of England and Wales.
So as usual we can blame the French :D
When a democracy does something wrong, it just means that there is a higher degree of personal guilt with the individual citizens compared to actions of a dictatorship.
How do you determine that the annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel is wrong? Especially as this annexation meant that the local population sitting in that area received Israeli citizenship and enjoys freedoms that don't exist under the Syrian regime.
On the other hand there's no doubt that the shelling of civilians is wrong (which is exactly what the Syrians did while they had the Golan Heights in their hands), we can agree on this.
Apparently not. No one has recognized it yet.
In that case we can wait another 37 years and see... or another 37 years after that and so on... this doesn't really bother us (maybe you, but not us).
37 or 24 years is not long in historical terms but that's just my opinion ;)
And I agree with that opinion, yet my point is that in comparison to the examples you have brought forth, we have held the Golan for a relatively great amount of time... nevermind that there are many other differences that I could point out.
Yes I chose examples that were relatively short-lived. But that was precisely my point that annexation is not necessarily for ever.
And I could bring examples that show the opposite, however with any example that I could bring forth (including that of the Golan Heights) you will have the benefit of pointing out that things may change in the future.
BTW it is nice to be able to debate these things with an Israeli without any name calling going on.
This has nothing to do with the person's nationality, but rather the person's nature.
Laworkerbee
10-03-2005, 07:46 PM
I think that Golan Heights should be given back to Syria simply because I oppose Israel and the United States.
Fixed. :bash:
rofl so true
Laworkerbee
10-03-2005, 07:49 PM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
Israel earned it....the hard way
Telnyashka
10-03-2005, 10:17 PM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
Israel earned it....the hard way
Oh they "earned" it... oh so, Germany managed to invade Poland so they "earn" the right to exterminate the Jews there...
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
Israel earned it....the hard way
Oh they "earned" it... oh so, Germany managed to invade Poland so they "earn" the right to exterminate the Jews there...
How does capturing the Golan Heights during the Six Day War correspond to Germany exterminating the Jews in Poland? :lol:
Mr. Nielsen
10-04-2005, 05:28 AM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
Israel earned it....the hard way
Oh they "earned" it... oh so, Germany managed to invade Poland so they "earn" the right to exterminate the Jews there...
How does capturing the Golan Heights during the Six Day War correspond to Germany exterminating the Jews in Poland? :lol:
I think this is a better way to formulate it:
Germany managed to invade Poland and so "earned" the right to annex it and settle it with germans?
After all, exterminating jews was not yet part of the nazi agenda.
a_very_ex_STAB
10-04-2005, 06:27 AM
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
Israel earned it....the hard way
Oh they "earned" it... oh so, Germany managed to invade Poland so they "earn" the right to exterminate the Jews there...
How does capturing the Golan Heights during the Six Day War correspond to Germany exterminating the Jews in Poland? :lol:
I think this is a better way to formulate it:
Germany managed to invade Poland and so "earned" the right to annex it and settle it with germans?
After all, exterminating jews was not yet part of the nazi agenda.
That is correct. The Germans invaded Poland in 1939 and the western portion was annexed for settlement by ethnic Germans. The Polish population was to be moved into the central zone of Poland known as the General Government IIRC.
This is going way way off topic but AFAIK the 'Final Solution' aka the extermination of the Jewish people was a separate issue from the annexation and as we all know not something that just took place in Poland. I think the Nazi's finally decided on that at the Wannsee conference in 1942(?) not 1939.
You are right, the Final Solution is way off topic.
Poland was no threat to any of her neighbors. She was surrounded by two fanatic and hostile ideologies, i.e. Fascism and Communism and both had histories of expansionism prior to the invasion of Poland. Israel does not pose a threat to her neighbors and is surrounded by hostile nations.
a_very_ex_STAB
10-04-2005, 09:19 AM
You are right, the Final Solution is way off topic.
Poland was no threat to any of her neighbors. She was surrounded by two fanatic and hostile ideologies, i.e. Fascism and Communism and both had histories of expansionism prior to the invasion of Poland. Israel does not pose a threat to her neighbors and is surrounded by hostile nations.
So are you saying that because Israel is not a threat to its neighbours it should be able to take the water resources of the Golan Heights?
As the Golan is internationally recognized to be part of Syria surely that means that Israel cannot be described simply as 'not a threat to its neighbours'. I would imagine the Syrians would take a different view from you because they would like their land and water back.
AFAIK no other countries have recognised the annexation.
You are right, the Final Solution is way off topic.
Poland was no threat to any of her neighbors. She was surrounded by two fanatic and hostile ideologies, i.e. Fascism and Communism and both had histories of expansionism prior to the invasion of Poland. Israel does not pose a threat to her neighbors and is surrounded by hostile nations.
So are you saying that because Israel is not a threat to its neighbours it should be able to take the water resources of the Golan Heights?
As the Golan is internationally recognized to be part of Syria surely that means that Israel cannot be described simply as 'not a threat to its neighbours'. I would imagine the Syrians would take a different view from you because they would like their land and water back.
AFAIK no other countries have recognised the annexation.
this area is a strategic area,with control to the water the gets to the kineret the primary water resource of israel and its population inhabitat in it so y we would give it the golan hights was a strategic position where the syrians could shoot everyone passing near it you should go there and see how easy it is and in their control the syrians will have full control on our water ok and lets leave the security issue and the water issue its all population is israeli.
dude if u want to talk on WW2 althogh its off topic after the war france got parts of germany that were germanys teritoris before the war y dont they give it back their "occupying" their land.
its a war rightfully won teritories and theres no reason we should give it to them and no chance.
The whole idea off that Israel must have the Golan because off drinking water is wrong there are plenty good methods for desalination sea- and brackish water today and Israel already have the technology in small scale but as we al know the Isrealis are smart so i am 100% sure that they can fix drinking water with out the Golan ;) .
But as many people say the Golan is a very strategic area and if the pull back the can have allot off problem with terrorists.
b.scheller
10-04-2005, 12:38 PM
To argue, for the Israeli government maintaining rigid control over the Golan Heights, is this; no matter what the Knesset does, it will involve further attacks upon Israel. Even if they were to give up, Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, there would be continual efforts by the PLO and the Hamas to destroy Israel and it's people.
Getting out of the Golan Heights, or getting out of the Gaza strip, will not resolve in abandonment of the terror. These terror organizations, have been built upon destroying Israel, one step at a time. This build up of, and "education", has created generations of hateful individuals.
They will not stop at nothing, even if they were to drive all Israeli's into the sea, they would continue on, in a further campaign that is unaccomplishable. Such as the carrying out of Hitler's unaccomplished goal, of the final solution, or they would turn towards another state, such as the U.S, blaming them for their misfortune, blaming the west for the unjust Crusades, or aiding Israel in it's fight for existance.
This same argument, can prove, that no matter what the United States does, the fundamentalist "jihadists" will always blame them for some misfortune, if it was not the war in Iraq, it would have been the crusades. They are not rational beings, they will fight until they accomplish their goal, which is impossible to accomplish, thus they will forever exist.
How could Palestinian terror organizations cease to exist, after having brainwashed and trained generations, to blow themselves up, with the incentive of going to heaven and receiving their whatever amount of virgins. Their struggle, is to blame the west and Israel for their current state of economic hardship, and for having invaded their land, colonized, and enslaved their people, to the corruption of the West.
This cycle will never end, and it will lead to countless amounts of casualties. On both sides of the issue.
-b.scheller
Moledet
10-04-2005, 01:17 PM
You are right, the Final Solution is way off topic.
Poland was no threat to any of her neighbors. She was surrounded by two fanatic and hostile ideologies, i.e. Fascism and Communism and both had histories of expansionism prior to the invasion of Poland. Israel does not pose a threat to her neighbors and is surrounded by hostile nations.
So are you saying that because Israel is not a threat to its neighbours it should be able to take the water resources of the Golan Heights?
As the Golan is internationally recognized to be part of Syria surely that means that Israel cannot be described simply as 'not a threat to its neighbours'. I would imagine the Syrians would take a different view from you because they would like their land and water back.
AFAIK no other countries have recognised the annexation.
The UN recognises the Golan as Israeli land as long as there's no peace agreement between Israel and Syria.
The international border of Israel by the UN passes in the Israeli side of Mount Hermon.
I care alot.
The golan is ours. and that it, we won it.. we died for it.
Israel earned it....the hard way
Oh they "earned" it... oh so, Germany managed to invade Poland so they "earn" the right to exterminate the Jews there...
How does capturing the Golan Heights during the Six Day War correspond to Germany exterminating the Jews in Poland? :lol:
I think this is a better way to formulate it:
Germany managed to invade Poland and so "earned" the right to annex it and settle it with germans?
Germany invaded and captured Poland without provocation with the aim of annexing it.
The Golan Heights on the other hand were captured in a defensive war while that area served the Syrians as a strategic point from which they shelled civilian communities in northern Israel since 1948.
Laworkerbee
10-04-2005, 03:32 PM
Exactly S'13
b.scheller
10-04-2005, 03:40 PM
Unfortunately, even though the Golan Heights were captured in the Six-Day War, it did not mean, the end of shelling of Northern settlements and towns in Israel. In fact, bombing continued from Lebanon which eventually sparked the 1982 invasion.
I've read a story, where Israeli tanks, outnumbered, were able to destroy the Syrian armoured units, that had penetrated and attempted to capture the Golan Heights. I believe this was, during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, I'll try to find the actual story, but any of the Israelis could surely provide a link, with the proper detail, and account.
-b.scheller
The whole idea off that Israel must have the Golan because off drinking water is wrong there are plenty good methods for desalination sea- and brackish water today and Israel already have the technology in small scale but as we al know the Isrealis are smart so i am 100% sure that they can fix drinking water with out the Golan ;) .
Actually Israel has already built a desalination plant in Ashkelon that is converting sea water into drinking water, which is added into Israel's general water supply. By the end of 2007 three other such plants will start working and together will produce an amount of water similar to the amount we pump from the Sea of Galilee (Israel's main source of drinking water). However the issue of water is still very important for Israel and the rest of the ME for that matter.
Even if we solve the water problem alltogether, there is (as you pointed out) the strategical issues. Not to mention that this area has been heavily settled by Israelis and there is widespread agriculture.
And since there are no demography problems in this area and as it has been annexed by Israel over 20 years ago... there is a strong consensus in Israel regarding leaving this area in our hands.
I've read a story, where Israeli tanks, outnumbered, were able to destroy the Syrian armoured units, that had penetrated and attempted to capture the Golan Heights. I believe this was, during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, I'll try to find the actual story, but any of the Israelis could surely provide a link, with the proper detail, and account.
The Story of the 7th brigade:
In the northern half of the front, there was the 7th brigade, and at the place of the main Syrian effort, along the main road from Damascus to the Jordan Valley, a huge Syrian force was stopped by the 77 tank battalion of Lt. Col. Avigdor Kahalani (Now Brig. Gen. Ret.).
Kahalani's tanks, dug in high placed firing positions, destroyed hundreds of Syrian targets in about 48 hours of fierce fighting, while massively outnumbered. the huge Syrian force kept advancing towards the smaller Israeli force, and at some point, at the peak of battle, Kahalani noticed that some of his tanks, afraid of being overrun by the approaching enemy, started retreating. Knowing that if the enemy force would capture the high hills line which his force held, they would quickly destroy all the retreating force. Since radio chat failed to persuade the tanks (some of them already with no more ammo. After many hours of fighting) to stop retreating, Kahalani made an act of brave self-example, he called his tanks by radio again, and said "we are better than they are, let's storm them" and then moved his tank to the highest position, and there, fully exposed to the enemy force started firing directly at the approaching enemy tanks.
This act of tremendous bravery and leadership, worked both ways. The Syrian force, which so far suffered heavy losses but knew that they're fighting an un-backed Israeli front line force, thought that an Israeli re-inforcement force had arrived and began to take positions on top of the ridge, and the retreating tanks, returned and re-took their firing positions. Seeing "new" tanks firing from the ridge top. the Syrian force decided that it's time to retreat due to the heavy losses suffered so far. It was the "straw that broke the camel's back" and the Syrian force, the main invading force, started retreating, leaving about 300 burned tanks and armored vehicles behind. For these acts of bravery, leadership, and the tremendous fighting performances of his battalion, Lt. Col. Kahalani was also awarded the highest medal. By the way, Kahalani's gunner himself destroyed 17 Syrian tanks in this battle, one of them from range of 3 meters. (I'm sure no one would claim that in this case there was a range problem) however there was a problem with aiming. It was in the middle of the night, and the gunner just didn't see anything, Because the sights were filled with darkness, which was the Syrian tank. The gunner asked twice for range and directions, and was answered by kahalani "CLOSE!!!", seeing that the gunner is not firing, kahalani, who remembered being hit and suffering 60% skin burns when his tank was hit in the 1967 Six Day War, finally kicked the gunner's back and shouted "JUST FIRE!!!" (and was temporarily blinded by the flash of the close hit at the enemy's turret.)
150 Israeli tanks stopped invading Syrian columns -with more than 1,400 tanks -in the "bottleneck" Valley of Tears pass in the north (the battle mentioned above), and the pass through the volcanic hills in the south.
And of course there is also the well known story of "Zvika force" from that war...
caridon
10-04-2005, 05:14 PM
Germany invaded and captured Poland without provocation with the aim of annexing it.
The Golan Heights on the other hand were captured in a defensive war while that area served the Syrians as a strategic point from which they shelled civilian communities in northern Israel since 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_heights
some interesting quotes.
"After the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War, the Golan Heights were partly demilitarized by the Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement. Over the following years the Mixed Armistice Commission reported many violations by each side."
"During the Six-Day War (1967), the IDF captured the Golan Heights on 9-10 June. The area which came under Israeli control as a result of the war is two geologically distinct areas: the Golan Heights proper (1,070 km²) and the slopes of the Mt. Hermon range (100 km²)."
and
"Before the Six-Day War the strategic heights of the Golan, which are approximately 3000 ft (1000 m) above pre-1967 Israel, were used to frequently bombard civilian Israeli farming communities far below them, although Moshe Dayan (Israeli Defense Minister during the 1967 war) would later state that it was most often the result of Israeli provocations in the demilitarized zone."
So we can conclude that Israel was not innocent in the matter of shelling and that the heights were captured in a offencive war not a defensive one.
Lets get tha facts straight will you S'13
/C
Golani68
10-04-2005, 05:32 PM
http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/israel/bstickers/jril0435.jpg
SHANA TOVA
Mr. Nielsen
10-04-2005, 05:48 PM
http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/israel/bstickers/jril0866.jpg
Ambitious.
IDFM203
10-04-2005, 06:29 PM
Back in my younger days (ok just over a year ago ;)) I would dissect every post of your’s in this thread, for the fallacies and sarcastic comments by you are bountiful though I don’t have the patience nor the will to waste my time like that anymore so I just have three quick responses.
Golan is Israeli territory, period. . Fixed that for you ;)
Israel has in fact "annexed" the Golan heights in the eighties. :lol: .I agree that it is funny that they did this in the 80’s as Israel should have really done so after the 6 day war. :lol:
The annexation is recognized by the same number of other countries, that recognized Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in 1990.The latter being a invasion of pure aggression, A LOT different then what Israel did in 1967 and in 1973.
Anyways, no nation on earth should require or have to seek anyone else’s approval to hold onto land it has attained through a defensive war.
Shalom :)
Laworkerbee
10-04-2005, 06:29 PM
I've read a story, where Israeli tanks, outnumbered, were able to destroy the Syrian armoured units, that had penetrated and attempted to capture the Golan Heights. I believe this was, during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, I'll try to find the actual story, but any of the Israelis could surely provide a link, with the proper detail, and account.
The Story of the 7th brigade:
In the northern half of the front, there was the 7th brigade, and at the place of the main Syrian effort, along the main road from Damascus to the Jordan Valley, a huge Syrian force was stopped by the 77 tank battalion of Lt. Col. Avigdor Kahalani (Now Brig. Gen. Ret.).
Kahalani's tanks, dug in high placed firing positions, destroyed hundreds of Syrian targets in about 48 hours of fierce fighting, while massively outnumbered. the huge Syrian force kept advancing towards the smaller Israeli force, and at some point, at the peak of battle, Kahalani noticed that some of his tanks, afraid of being overrun by the approaching enemy, started retreating. Knowing that if the enemy force would capture the high hills line which his force held, they would quickly destroy all the retreating force. Since radio chat failed to persuade the tanks (some of them already with no more ammo. After many hours of fighting) to stop retreating, Kahalani made an act of brave self-example, he called his tanks by radio again, and said "we are better than they are, let's storm them" and then moved his tank to the highest position, and there, fully exposed to the enemy force started firing directly at the approaching enemy tanks.
This act of tremendous bravery and leadership, worked both ways. The Syrian force, which so far suffered heavy losses but knew that they're fighting an un-backed Israeli front line force, thought that an Israeli re-inforcement force had arrived and began to take positions on top of the ridge, and the retreating tanks, returned and re-took their firing positions. Seeing "new" tanks firing from the ridge top. the Syrian force decided that it's time to retreat due to the heavy losses suffered so far. It was the "straw that broke the camel's back" and the Syrian force, the main invading force, started retreating, leaving about 300 burned tanks and armored vehicles behind. For these acts of bravery, leadership, and the tremendous fighting performances of his battalion, Lt. Col. Kahalani was also awarded the highest medal. By the way, Kahalani's gunner himself destroyed 17 Syrian tanks in this battle, one of them from range of 3 meters. (I'm sure no one would claim that in this case there was a range problem) however there was a problem with aiming. It was in the middle of the night, and the gunner just didn't see anything, Because the sights were filled with darkness, which was the Syrian tank. The gunner asked twice for range and directions, and was answered by kahalani "CLOSE!!!", seeing that the gunner is not firing, kahalani, who remembered being hit and suffering 60% skin burns when his tank was hit in the 1967 Six Day War, finally kicked the gunner's back and shouted "JUST FIRE!!!" (and was temporarily blinded by the flash of the close hit at the enemy's turret.)
150 Israeli tanks stopped invading Syrian columns -with more than 1,400 tanks -in the "bottleneck" Valley of Tears pass in the north (the battle mentioned above), and the pass through the volcanic hills in the south.
And of course there is also the well known story of "Zvika force" from that war...
The Israeli tank recovery crews saved the day, some 7th Brigade tanks were knocked out 2 or 3 times but were repaired and put back into action quickly, huge force multiplyer.
walford
10-04-2005, 10:06 PM
Also all the examples you have presented are of annexations carried out by non-Democratic regimes (which is not the case with Israel).When a democracy does something wrong, it just means that there is a higher degree of personal guilt with the individual citizens compared to actions of a dictatorship.Thus we have the essence of the double-standard as applied to resisting dictatorship/national extermination.
Unlike what was the case with Hitler, Saddam and Argentina, Golan was used as a staging ground for attacks against Israel for years before 1967.
Further, all of the 'occupied' territories taken in that war were being used by Israel's enemies for a staging ground for an all-out offensive to destroy the Jewish State once and for all.
Egypt got the Sinai back because of credible assurances that it would not be used to attack Israel. The pledge was so credible in fact that the Arabs killed Egypt's head of state for doing so.
Giving strategic control of land to people who are still pledged to destroy Israel is suicide, especially to territory as vital as Golan. Those who advocate turning this land over to the terrorist-hosting Ba'athist regime in Damascus know this.
I suspect that some, especially in Europe, favor anything that would destroy Israel [and oppose anything that fosters its continued survival] because they hope that if the Arabs are so richly appeased, then maybe the burgeoning Arab populations within their own countries will 'settle down' and maybe not kill so many Westerners.
The Arab reaction in to the Gaza withdrawal should give yet another indication of how they interpret concessions made to them.
b.scheller
10-04-2005, 10:15 PM
You know Walford, your posts are always a pleasure to read. Not because, they may necessairly agree with my politick, but because I think, you just articulate yourself well, and your always civil and calm (although you don't take bull, from no fool's).
Great post, thanks for sharing!
-b.scheller
walford
10-04-2005, 10:29 PM
^^^Obviously you are not of the Illuminati. Prepare to be slimed by one of Our Betters.
speckfire
10-04-2005, 11:10 PM
Elie Cohen made the Golan possible. Dont forget him
Germany invaded and captured Poland without provocation with the aim of annexing it.
The Golan Heights on the other hand were captured in a defensive war while that area served the Syrians as a strategic point from which they shelled civilian communities in northern Israel since 1948.
"Before the Six-Day War the strategic heights of the Golan, which are approximately 3000 ft (1000 m) above pre-1967 Israel, were used to frequently bombard civilian Israeli farming communities far below them, although Moshe Dayan (Israeli Defense Minister during the 1967 war) would later state that it was most often the result of Israeli provocations in the demilitarized zone."
So we can conclude that Israel was not innocent in the matter of shelling and that the heights were captured in a offencive war not a defensive one.
Lets get tha facts straight will you S'13
/C
Even if this was the case, is the shelling of civilians a valid response to any such " Israeli provocations in the demilitarized zone"?
It seems to me that the side conducting provocations is the one that chooses to shell civilians. These shellings brought Israel to respond with raids on Syrian bunkers and artillery positions on the Golan Heights (not civilians).
One of my father's cousins was killed in one such raid as he was a soldier in the Golani Brigade.
The action taken by Israel in the Six Day War was a defensive one as the capture of the Golan Heights ensured an end to the shelling of civilians by the Syrians and created a buffer zone against any Syrian invasion or commando raids.
So we can conclude that you should work more on your case before telling others to get their facts straight ;)
Flagg
10-06-2005, 01:16 AM
Back in my younger days (ok just over a year ago ;)) I would dissect every post of your’s in this thread, for the fallacies and sarcastic comments by you are bountiful though I don’t have the patience nor the will to waste my time like that anymore so I just have three quick responses.
Golan is Israeli territory, period. . Fixed that for you ;)
Israel has in fact "annexed" the Golan heights in the eighties. :lol: .I agree that it is funny that they did this in the 80’s as Israel should have really done so after the 6 day war. :lol:
The annexation is recognized by the same number of other countries, that recognized Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in 1990.The latter being a invasion of pure aggression, A LOT different then what Israel did in 1967 and in 1973.
Anyways, no nation on earth should require or have to seek anyone else’s approval to hold onto land it has attained through a defensive war.
Shalom :)
Welcome back..... :lol:
IDFM203
10-06-2005, 07:42 AM
Welcome back..... :lol: :lol: Thanks.......I see you are referring to my first paragraph, well as you can recall, if this was perhaps a year ago, you would see that post a whole lot larger and with more details then I how responded the other day ;)
Shalom :)
Mr. Nielsen
10-06-2005, 08:23 AM
An except from an article on the subject in todays Haaretz:
If the Americans succeed and Assad is replaced by some sort of Syrian Abu Mazen who will speak in moderate tones and represent the country's Sunni majority, the Golan will soon be back on the agenda. Assad's successors would demand of the Americans that they strengthen their regime by means of an Israeli territorial concession. This is apparently the reason why Israel prefers an Assad who is weak, isolated and under pressure to a change of government that would upset the "northern system." An Assad in power means that the Golan remains in Israeli hands. The return of the Golan - from todays Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/632253.html)
I think that Golan Heights should be given back to Syria simply because it was part of the peace plan, yet still not implemented.
Russia should give up Kaliningrad since it was German territory that was acquired through an aggression by Germany. Does this make any sense to you? I love it when people tell what Israel should keep or give away.
Laworkerbee
10-06-2005, 01:09 PM
An except from an article on the subject in todays Haaretz:
If the Americans succeed and Assad is replaced by some sort of Syrian Abu Mazen who will speak in moderate tones and represent the country's Sunni majority, the Golan will soon be back on the agenda. Assad's successors would demand of the Americans that they strengthen their regime by means of an Israeli territorial concession. This is apparently the reason why Israel prefers an Assad who is weak, isolated and under pressure to a change of government that would upset the "northern system." An Assad in power means that the Golan remains in Israeli hands. The return of the Golan - from todays Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/632253.html)
I'm just trying to figure out why you have such an immense hard-on for the Syrians to have their artillery spotting posts given back to them in the Golan. Are you a Syrian by blood? or just enjoy watching them Yahoudi's run for cover from 122mm shells?
Mr. Nielsen
10-06-2005, 03:46 PM
An except from an article on the subject in todays Haaretz:
If the Americans succeed and Assad is replaced by some sort of Syrian Abu Mazen who will speak in moderate tones and represent the country's Sunni majority, the Golan will soon be back on the agenda. Assad's successors would demand of the Americans that they strengthen their regime by means of an Israeli territorial concession. This is apparently the reason why Israel prefers an Assad who is weak, isolated and under pressure to a change of government that would upset the "northern system." An Assad in power means that the Golan remains in Israeli hands. The return of the Golan - from todays Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/632253.html)
I'm just trying to figure out why you have such an immense hard-on for the Syrians to have their artillery spotting posts given back to them in the Golan. Are you a Syrian by blood? or just enjoy watching them Yahoudi's run for cover from 122mm shells?
Do you seriously believe that is what's going to happen if there was a peace agreement between Syria and Israel that included Israel leaving occupied syrian territory? Look, prior to 1967 there was an ongoing mutual tit for tat fighting over the border. But since 1973 there have been quiet between Syrians and Israelis in the Golans.
Laworkerbee
10-06-2005, 05:11 PM
An except from an article on the subject in todays Haaretz:
If the Americans succeed and Assad is replaced by some sort of Syrian Abu Mazen who will speak in moderate tones and represent the country's Sunni majority, the Golan will soon be back on the agenda. Assad's successors would demand of the Americans that they strengthen their regime by means of an Israeli territorial concession. This is apparently the reason why Israel prefers an Assad who is weak, isolated and under pressure to a change of government that would upset the "northern system." An Assad in power means that the Golan remains in Israeli hands. The return of the Golan - from todays Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/632253.html)
I'm just trying to figure out why you have such an immense hard-on for the Syrians to have their artillery spotting posts given back to them in the Golan. Are you a Syrian by blood? or just enjoy watching them Yahoudi's run for cover from 122mm shells?
Do you seriously believe that is what's going to happen if there was a peace agreement between Syria and Israel that included Israel leaving occupied syrian territory? Look, prior to 1967 there was an ongoing mutual tit for tat fighting over the border. But since 1973 there have been quiet between Syrians and Israelis in the Golans.
Thats bullsh*t and you know it, the Syrians have been fighting a war by proxy against Israel for decades without the Israelis responding in kind I might add. The only reason the Syrians are staying quiet is because they are faced by a militarily superior Israel and factionalism in the Arab world.
Why do you seriously believe in the Syrians holding up their end of ANY peace agreement when they have shown no willingness to ever do so, and still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.
You don't care about Syrians or Arabs nor care for peace in the area, face it your sick hatred of Jews hides behind of mask of politics.
Moledet
10-06-2005, 07:03 PM
An except from an article on the subject in todays Haaretz:
If the Americans succeed and Assad is replaced by some sort of Syrian Abu Mazen who will speak in moderate tones and represent the country's Sunni majority, the Golan will soon be back on the agenda. Assad's successors would demand of the Americans that they strengthen their regime by means of an Israeli territorial concession. This is apparently the reason why Israel prefers an Assad who is weak, isolated and under pressure to a change of government that would upset the "northern system." An Assad in power means that the Golan remains in Israeli hands. The return of the Golan - from todays Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/632253.html)
I'm just trying to figure out why you have such an immense hard-on for the Syrians to have their artillery spotting posts given back to them in the Golan. Are you a Syrian by blood? or just enjoy watching them Yahoudi's run for cover from 122mm shells?
Do you seriously believe that is what's going to happen if there was a peace agreement between Syria and Israel that included Israel leaving occupied syrian territory? Look, prior to 1967 there was an ongoing mutual tit for tat fighting over the border. But since 1973 there have been quiet between Syrians and Israelis in the Golans.
What's in it for us? The Syrians won't stop funding terror even after a "peace" agreement and ofcourse won't do a thing to arrest all the terror organizations that their HQs are in Damascus.
Without an agreement we can at least attack the terrorists HQs in Syria, after an agreement we won't even have this option. There's also the American pressure, if a peace agreement is achieved with Syria the US won't have the right to pressure them because on paper they are "good boys" now.
The funny thing is that they want us to give them land, kick thousands of people from their homes, destroy factories and farmland that worth billions of dollars in compensations just so they won't attack us. It's probably in our best interest that they will attack us, we'll just crush their army in few days, march into Syria, kill thousands of top terrorists and leave.
walford
10-06-2005, 07:56 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why you have such an immense hard-on for the Syrians to have their artillery spotting posts given back to them in the Golan. Are you a Syrian by blood? or just enjoy watching them Yahoudi's run for cover from 122mm shells?Do you seriously believe that is what's going to happen if there was a peace agreement between Syria and Israel that included Israel leaving occupied syrian territory?....Interesting how you did not mention that such an agreement would also have to include not hosting/financing/serving as a conduit for terrorists who not only conduct operations against Israel, but elsewhere *cough Iraq*. Further, Syria has had troops occupying another country for more than a generation. Why does this not garner any criticism from the Illuminati in the West?
And finally, of what value is an agreement -- in which only the Israelis apparently must make concessions -- with a one-party, minority-dominated dicatorship?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/b/b0/Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg
Violet Fashion by Mindy
10-06-2005, 08:16 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why you have such an immense hard-on for the Syrians to have their artillery spotting posts given back to them in the Golan. Are you a Syrian by blood? or just enjoy watching them Yahoudi's run for cover from 122mm shells?Do you seriously believe that is what's going to happen if there was a peace agreement between Syria and Israel that included Israel leaving occupied syrian territory?....Interesting how you did not mention that such an agreement would also have to include not hosting/financing/serving as a conduit for terrorists who not only conduct operations against Israel, but elsewhere *cough Iraq*. Further, Syria has had troops occupying another country for more than a generation. Why does this not garner any criticism from the Illuminati in the West?
And finally, of what value is an agreement -- in which only the Israelis apparently must make concessions -- with a one-party, minority-dominated dicatorship?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/b/b0/Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg
To compare current events with ww2 is being ignorant.
1939 is not 2005.
The images of 1914-1918 are still high on peoples minds. The world has yet to recover from it. Literally 10's of thousends of soldiers being killed in minutes.
Any sane and normal politician would of tried everything to prevent war under the circumstances.
walford
10-06-2005, 08:26 PM
It was true then and it is true now. An agreement with a dictatorship is worthless.
a_very_ex_STAB
10-07-2005, 03:05 AM
I'm just trying to figure out why you have such an immense hard-on for the Syrians to have their artillery spotting posts given back to them in the Golan. Are you a Syrian by blood? or just enjoy watching them Yahoudi's run for cover from 122mm shells?Do you seriously believe that is what's going to happen if there was a peace agreement between Syria and Israel that included Israel leaving occupied syrian territory?....Interesting how you did not mention that such an agreement would also have to include not hosting/financing/serving as a conduit for terrorists who not only conduct operations against Israel, but elsewhere *cough Iraq*. Further, Syria has had troops occupying another country for more than a generation. Why does this not garner any criticism from the Illuminati in the West?
And finally, of what value is an agreement -- in which only the Israelis apparently must make concessions -- with a one-party, minority-dominated dicatorship?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/b/b0/Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg
To compare current events with ww2 is being ignorant.
1939 is not 2005.
The images of 1914-1918 are still high on peoples minds. The world has yet to recover from it. Literally 10's of thousends of soldiers being killed in minutes.
Any sane and normal politician would of tried everything to prevent war under the circumstances.
Neville Chamberlain wasn't stupid. He knew full well that if Britain went to war with Germany in 1938 we would have lost. He was buying the time needed to introduce conscription in Britain, build fighter aircraft and train the pilots who would eventually fight in the Battle of Britain.
Tough on the Czechs though - but that's geopolitical reality for you.
b.scheller
10-07-2005, 07:21 AM
What? Where did you get your information?
Hitler was ready to scramble and run, at the first sight of any Western troops when he stepped into the Rhineland, the Sudetanland and the Czech Republic. Hitler's army had no advantage against the west, up until they were ready to invade the lower countries. Even on the eve of the Fall Weiss Campaign, Hitler was afraid that the Western Allies might declare war and actually act out on it, creating the second front, which would have crushed the Third Reich within months, but he took the gamble and unfortunately won.
Neville Chamberlain was not stupid, but like most of the British politicians, incluidng Lord Halifax, he was an appeasing coward, with strong admiration for Nazism. He was the wrong man for the job, during the coming of a storm.
As for Israel, they are not appeasing their terror neighbours, but have made so many concessions due to the influence and affluence of international relations, that they gave up the conquered lands, including the Sinai, which if they had kept, Israel would have it's own oil reserve for drilling and refining.
Even though the west, has helped to create Israel, since then, they have wanted nothing, but to topple the state. Sort of politics of oil, I guess. Even though the United States has been their most ardent stounch supporter, in recent years they have been a little more weary, when supporting Israel on the international stage.
-b.scheller
walford
10-07-2005, 02:47 PM
So Chamberlain only pretended that he hoped against hope that Hitler could be trusted to abide by what was signed on that fluttering piece of paper because he was in reality cannily playing for time? Indeed, let us see a link to that bit of generous revisionism.
The next thing we'll find out is that those countries that were selling Saddam weapons while at the same time trying to have the sanctions regime lifted were not seeking to profit even more from a bloodthirsty, terrorist-sponsoring tyrant [and then whine when he was ousted] but were in fact trying to lull him into a false sense of security. Then, at the right moment, they were planning to actually hold him to the terms of retaining his dictatorship -- rather than being disenthroned -- in 1991.
Laworkerbee
10-07-2005, 04:54 PM
So Chamberlain only pretended that he hoped against hope that Hitler could be trusted to abide by what was signed on that fluttering piece of paper because he was in reality cannily playing for time? Indeed, let us see a link to that bit of generous revisionism.
The next thing we'll find out is that those countries that were selling Saddam weapons while at the same time trying to have the sanctions regime lifted were not seeking to profit even more from a bloodthirsty, terrorist-sponsoring tyrant [and then whine when he was ousted] but were in fact trying to lull him into a false sense of security. Then, at the right moment, they were planning to actually hold him to the terms of retaining his dictatorship -- rather than being disenthroned -- in 1991.
Ok Pal you just earned yourself a round of drinks on me
ENSIGN FOREVER
10-15-2005, 04:49 PM
Syria: Israel will leave Golan Heights (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3149913,00.html)
Damascus Radio, a mouthpiece for government positions, says, ‘What happened in south Lebanon and Gaza will happen in the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Jerusalem; Syria will eventually gain full control over the Golan Heights, even if the process will be long and difficult’
Roee Nahmias”
Why do we post the rants of these imbecils and of Baby-Doc Assad???
The last time the Allawites sent their Sunni idiots to take on the IDF (1973), they were sent home with their tails between their legs (S.O.P.) and Israel annexed even more land--which will never be returned.
:bash:
Take that Baby-Doc Assad!!
Raistlin
10-22-2005, 07:02 AM
The whole idea off that Israel must have the Golan because off drinking water is wrong there are plenty good methods for desalination sea- and brackish water today and Israel already have the technology in small scale but as we al know the Isrealis are smart so i am 100% sure that they can fix drinking water with out the Golan ;)
You don't know much about modern fresh water ecology do you?
legally...schmegally. The US was once part of Britain, but we ain't givin' it back. You win the war you make the rules.
But, as for Syria claiming this at this time is a joke. Isreal doesn't even need to deal with Assad now, because he is weak politically. They can sit back and see if he will implode.
Legally..... hehehe
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.