Akiva Eldar recently published a short piece in Haaretz about the recent book on Golan and the history of the Israeli-Syrian conflict written by Yigal Kipnis.
Kipnis is a resident of the settlement of Maale Gamleh in southern Golan. He is one of a group of Golan settlers who says they would be prepared to evacuate their present homes in the interest of a final-status peace between Israel and Syria.
Golan has been under belligerent military occupation by Israel since June 1967. In 1981, the Israeli parliament “extended Israeli jurisdiction” to the area– a step that is the equivalent of all-out annexation. (Such as the Israeli parliament did to occupied East Jerusalem in 1967.) Some 18,000 Israeli settlers and 17,000 indigenous Syrian citizens live on Golan. The Syrian Golanis are the remnants of a once much larger civilian Syrian population there; the rest all fled almost immediately after the collapse of the Syrian army’s defensive positions there during the 1967 war.
Kipnis’s book, “The Mountain That Was As a Monster” (Magnes Press), is an account of the history of the always fraught Syrian-Israeli relationship and includes an assessment of the way that Israelis have nearly always felt fearful about the prospect of the Syrian army coming once again to the Golan Plateau. (Hence its title.)
Of course, in the context of any conceivable Syrian-Israeli peace, all of Golan– including the elevated plateau– would be substantially demilitarized subsequent to the full Israeli withdrawal from the plateau that the Syrians have always, quite justifiably, insisted on. So the “fears” of the Israelis about the heights are quite groundless; but they go back a long way.
In his article, Eldar reports,
- Kipnis writes that from the perspective of the Galilee panhandle inhabitants, who until June 1967 had been bombarded from the east, the image of the Syrian Golan as a “monster” is justified. However, in his opinion, a precise examination of the Israeli-Syrian conflict reveals that the sense of threat and fear has existed, perhaps even more so, on the other side – looking from the mountain to the valley, from Syria into Israel. Kipnis argues that the Syrian’s fear of Israel grew stronger in direct proportion to Israel’s increasing military might and superiority over Syria. Exaggerated fear and mistaken information, he wrote, fed into each side’s perception of the other as demonic.
I don’t know if Kipnis writes this in the book, but it is also certainly the case that the Israeli military’s current positions atop the heights and also in the upper reaches of Jebel al-Shaikh (Mount Hermon) allow them to directly overlook Damascus, which is not far away, and to peer deep into the Syrian interior beyond.
If all those heights are demilitarized and a trustworthy monitoring and verification regime is installed there, neither side need live in fear.
Even more importantly, once Israel has a final-status peace with Syria– which will certainly help pave the way for an Israeli-Lebanese peace– then for the first time Israel will have no immediate neighbor with whom it is at war and who has any substantial military capability able to threaten Israel’s homeland. This means Israeli society can become transformed from the militaristic, national-security state it has been since its founding into a much more normal form of state. Military spending can be ramped down considerably, and young Israelis (and young Syrians) need no longer have to serve as conscripts in their army.
What a great prospect.
In the context of a final-status Syrian-Israeli peace, citizens of each country will be able to visit each other’s countries. And if Israel has also concluded a sustainable and fair final-status peace with the Palestinians at that point, the possibilities for extensive normalization of relations are enormous.
However, many or most Jewish citizens of Israel remain until now unpersuaded by those prospects. They prefer the idea that they alone can dominate Golan’s fertile plateau and its rolling hills and streams.
Netanyahu’s national security adviser Uzi Arad recently had this exchange with Haaretz’s Avi Shavit:
- Arad: [I]f there is a territorial compromise, it is one that still leaves Israel on the Golan Heights and deep into the Golan Heights.
Shavit: From your point of view, is that the right position to take? That this must be the essence of a settlement – a compromise deep into the Golan Heights? That even in peace we must ensure that a large part of the Golan Heights remain in our hands?
Yes
Why?
For strategic, military and land-settlement reasons. Needs of water, wine and view.
So you say unequivocally: Peace yes, Golan no?
Correct.
What about the “deposit” of Yitzhak Rabin, in which he undertook to leave the Golan Heights?
There is no such thing…
Too bad about that language in all the relevant UN resolutions about “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, eh?
It’s all about water, imho. An important part of the Zionist project is ensuring that all the water resources of the entire region are sluiced off for the benefit of Jews only, and the headwaters of countless streams and rivers are located in the Golan. Goyim out, all the water for Jews, is the Zionists’ Golan policy in a nutshell.
Here’s an idea.
Bashir hops on a bus, goes to Jerusalem, recognises Israel and renounces violence. Whoopee do, he gets Sinai back. Um, er, that is, Golan. Complete with demilitarisation and UN peace keepers. Helena and her commenters crack the champers.
bb, are you truly unaware of the numerous efforts Bashshar has made toward Israel with pretty much that scenario in mind? And do you really believe that Sadat simply hopped on a bus, went to Jerusalem, recognized Israel, and whoopee do, he got the Sinai back?
Oh, and given Israel’s addiction to often massively deadly and destructive violence as opposed to Bashshar’s clear record of non-use of violence, isn’t a bit ridiculous of you to demand that Bashshar, and not Israel should renounce violence? In fact, it is downright outrageous given that Israel has attacked Syria, and Bashshar has never even retaliated.
I tend to agree with bb. Had you polled Israelis prior to Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem, they also probably would have overwhelmingly rejected returning the Sinai – for strategic reasons.
Once Sadat did come to Israel he was met by a majority of Israelis waving small Egyptian flags, and he eventually got the Sinai – including Taba – back. Sure this hasn’t turned out to be the idyllic image that Helena projects for peace with Syria. It will be at least another generation before we’re all sitting around the camp fire singing “Kumbaya”. But it would be a step forward.
BTW, I believe that Netanyahu has already said that he is willing to meet with Bashar anytime and any place. It is up to the chinless doctor now!
Dunno how old you are Shirin, but I remember vividly the news reports of when Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem and addressed the Knesset. November 1977. It was electrifying. Within 12 months – less than a year later(!) the Egypt/Israel accords were signed and the Treaty followed a few months after that: mutual recognition, complete Israeli withdrawal to the last centimetre, de militarisation, and peace.
If Bashir’s father had done the same, then there wouldn’t have been that invasion of Lebanon. It would have been a breathtaking breakthrough. The Lebanese civil war would have come to a halt. Jordan would have followed suit and Israel would have had to quit the west bank. A respectful US guaranteed settlement would have been made for Jerusalem. There would have been none of the large scale Israeli settlements we see today. Carter wouldn’t have lost the election in 2000.
Not that I really blame Bashir for his father’s intransigence. And it has to be remembered that Sadat was assassinated for his sins by the Muslim Brotherhood. Pere Assad, of course, had solved his Brohood problems some years earlier by the good old tried and tested middle east rules. Wholesale massacre.
However I suspect if Just Perfidious Israel News had been around in 1977, Helena and her commenters would have called Sadat for everything ….
Nice fantasy you’ve got there, bb, but couldn’t you at least try to get the man’s name right?
Charming as usual!
Israeli Official: Opposition to Settlements May Undermine US Credibility
The Obama Administration’s calls to freeze settlement growth, a move unprecedented among US presidents, has strained ties with the right-wing Netanyahu government, which has vowed to continue expanding the settlements at all costs. Israeli officials have repeatedly said they believe the Obama Administration will eventually back off its demands.
The Obama administration will not “back off its demands”.
The Israelis will just annex all of Palestine while the “Obama administration” continues to say “You ought not to do that!” and Obama supporters rally ’round their rhetorician.
Everyone else in the world will despise Obama for the charlatan he is.
And the USA will continue to fund the annexation of Palestine.
BB, JES – Be serious. Sadat publicly offered Israel recognition and peace in 1971. Israel said go **** yourself. (As it had when Zaim of Syria publicly offered a peace treaty with Israel in 1949.) What convinced Israel to make peace with Egypt was the 1973 war. BB you sort of have the right idea, but the wrong actor – peace will come when Israel renounces violence, decides it has had enough of working out its holocaust neuroses (lets play pretend the Arabs, especially our Palestinian victims, are the Nazis!, tee hee hee!), decides to stop attacking Arabs and accepts their long-standing generous and reasonable peace offers. Sadat only got Sinai back after being broken down to incomplete sovereignty over it, discarding his demands for comprehensive peace, and major armtwisting by Carter to convince the Israelis to accept a extremely-beneficial-to-Israel deal, counter to their beloved self-destructive expansionist fantasies that they call “defending Israel.”
Oh come on JK. You bring up Husni Zaim. He was president of Syria for exactly four months until he was deposed and killed. Moreover, he suggested to Ben-Gurion that after a full peace treay that Israel and Syria unite their two armies to control the entire Middle East. What kind of “reasonable peace offer” is that?
And please, please spare us the penny psychology with your “holocaust neurosis” crap.
Helena’s scenario, as usual , is reasonable, optimistic and practically impossible. Israel is based on the military. It is an army with a state attached. Much of the economy is based on war profiteering. The military, which includes the government, of course, will never give up militarism and therefore needs a perpetual enemy (just as the US does). Syria is a nice safe incompetent enemy to justify the militarism, along with the already crushed Palestinians. Israel made peace with Egypt only after the US rescued them from imminent defeat in 1973. The possibility of facing a modern, competent army scared the hell out of them, so they got the US to create a peace on that front. Now that there is no real , significant threat, the Israeli military government can safely continue with their militaristic society and economy. Their plan appears to be simply to wait out the one term Obama administration.
Wow Jack, talk about lack of historical or geopolitical understanding! Did you ever happen to look at Syria, Jordan and Egypt. All are, as you say, “militaries with states attached”. That’s how, for example, a minority of 12% has managed to stay in power for all these years in Syria.
The Palestinians weren’t crushed. They imploded under the weight of their own interncine fighting and factionalism. And the United States didn’t rescue Israel from “imminent defeat” in 1973, as you say. The war ended with Israel on the other side of the canal and at the gates of Syria before US supplies had reached Israel.
By the way JK, do you think that you could decipher this rather incoherent, hysterical sentence for me:
Sadat only got Sinai back after being broken down to incomplete sovereignty over it, discarding his demands for comprehensive peace, and major armtwisting by Carter to convince the Israelis to accept a extremely-beneficial-to-Israel deal, counter to their beloved self-destructive expansionist fantasies that they call “defending Israel.”
Once again, I urge all posters to ignore JES and the other habaristas and not let the thread get distracted by their nonsense.
As the lady said: It’s getting nuttier and nuttier…
who came to the rescue in 2006 ? What was achieved in 2009 on a sieged people in Gaza ? DESTRUCTION,WOW !!
A defeated and weakened nation who does not want to confess to its limitation, will loose all . Saving humanity is a virtue !! Mark my words.
Adhering to International laws will prevent further suffering .
“Sadat publicly offered Israel recognition and peace in 1971. Israel said go **** yourself. (As it had when Zaim of Syria publicly offered a peace treaty with Israel in 1949.)”
The Arab League (which includes every Arab country including Syria, in case bb can’t find a Wikipedia article about that) has unanimously been offering Israel peace, recognition, and normal diplomatic and economic relations for seven years now, and for seven years Israel has told the Arab League to go f*** itself.
Bashshar (not Bashir) Al Asad has made numerous overtures toward Israel. Bashshar has also not used violence whatsoever despite the fact that Israel has attacked Syria, and yet in bb’s mind, Bashir (sic) is the one who must renounce violence.
But then bb still insists that Iraqis are all about being Sunnis or Shi’is, and that they now have a vibrant democracy.
JES – There is a major difference between Egypt and Syria when it comes to Israel’s attitude toward peace. In 1978 Israel still considered Egypt to be a potent enemy. The memories of the thousands of deaths at the hands of the Egyptian army were still fresh. While Sadat’s visit was a catalyst, Begin would not have given up the Sinai if, from a strategic sense, he did not fear a future Egyptian enemy.
On the other hand there is no one in Israel, military, political or civilian who has one ounce of fear of Syria. There is zero motivation to make peace and give back the Golan. Do you seriously think if Bashar came to Jerusalem, it would motivate Netanyahu or the Likud to give up one inch of the Golan? The attitude of the average Israeli,I’m sure you are aware, is very different in 2009 than it was 30 years ago. With the exception of Iran, Israel fears no one and thus little incentive to make accomadations.
@shirin,
Bashar al Assad has used violence against Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas.
Israel has been in negotiations with Syria and the PA. It would rather deal with one country at a time because if they do strike a deal with the PA and Syria, none of the Arab countries would have any “grievances” against Israel. It’s not the same as saying go **** …
It is worth noting that Egypt was kicked out of the Arab League after its peace deal with Israel and only re-admitted a decade later.
jledell – Well then, perhaps Syria should have taken the opportunity to make peace with Israel and retrieve the Golan Heights back in 1978 when they had an army that was a force to be rekoned with!
Michael, it is also worth noting that the so-called Arab League peace proposal is a non-negotiable ultimatum. Israel has already stated that they are willing to negotiate on the basis of the Saudi-Arab League proposal, but that has fallen on deaf ears. (BTW, whenever Shirin begins to criticize people for their transliteration skills, she’s run out of arguments.)
Michael there ought to be a limit to the extravagance of the assertions made here.
To say that Syria employs Hezbollah and Hamas is arrant nonsense, both are extremely well grounded movements of indigenous resistance.
I suspect that you know that as well as anyone else does. And, if you do not, you really ought to be doing some basic reading rather than posting opinions on the internet.
There are several people who post comments on this, useful and informative, site simply in order to interrupt and anger those engaged in discussion of what is an extraordinarily dangerous and deepening crisis in the middle east.
This is precisely what the Nazis did in Germany on their road to power, it is a standard fascist tactic born of a hatred of reason and popular democracy. It used to take the form of breaking up meetings: interrupting speakers, physically attacking opponents, letting off smoke or stink bombs.
Now it has been adapted for the internet. Fascists hate questioning and discussion. They hold that the right to make decisions, or to comment upon government, is restricted to the oligarchs, the leadership, the chosen few.
Not recognising the right of mere people to take part in discussions they regard breaking up ‘meetings’ on the internet as a necessary part of the restriction of power over government to a self-selected elite.
To the hasbarists jeering at those who criticise Israel is all of a piece with the repression and disfranchisement of non-Jews in Palestine. The point is not to win arguments but to suppress them. And the making of astonishingly tendentious assertions is all part of it.
Happily, those who employ such tactics rapidly destroy their own capacity to reason: those who enslave others soon commence upon the business of enslaving one another. The violence aimed outwards is turned inwards.
Israeli culture is rapidly becoming a laboratory for the development of intellectual and spiritual disease. An Empire on steroids and a hotbed of propagandists who are rapidly losing the crucial awareness that those guided by lies are headed towards insanity.
Anyone who considers Hezbollah and Hamas to be agents of the Syrian or Iranian states is allowing himself to be misled by someone contemptuous of truth.
“Bashar al Assad has used violence against Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas.”
Yeah, right, Michael. And Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006 to get back a couple of captured soldiers, and they attacked Gaza to stop the rocket fire – say, how’d that work out for them, anyway?
First of all, Bevin, I would point out to you that Asad Sr. was absolutely livid when Ehud Barak pulled out of southern Lebanon unilaterally, precisely because he would not be able to use Hizballah as leverage with Israel.
Secondly, perhaps it didn’t occur to you, but maybe you and all the other hizbalobbyists are the latter-day fascists speaking as yours is the only truth and trying to shut those up with whom you don’t agree.
So, my point to you is to look at yourself, to stop arguing and to start discussing.
Shirin, to support your comment I put this Complete text of Abdullah’s Arab Peace Initiative.
But some chose to have deaf ears and blind eyes of facts. there is one reason for that which is Self-serving Propaganda.
Shirin, bb learned from his Son who learned from his roommate a young Israeli chef an idealistic, peacenik in London bb coming here making his views surrounded by kangaroos.
Yap, tell this for yourself first JES then when you get it you can tell others to follow.
to refresh you very Short memory, that you flee the discussion and refused to discussing further JES just few Helena’s post here in this board
@bevin,
First, it is worth noting that some people said that Obama is like Hitler because of his great speech ability. So you calling me a Nazi holds no weight.
Second, you say that I use fascist tactics and list what fascist tactics are, but in no way you show how I used them. I didn’t say anybody’s comments are unworthy of being posted. You are the one who said that about my comments. It seems like you are the one who is trying to suppress me input.
A lot of your rhetoric sounds like that the Nazis used. Here are some exerpts from your comment:
1.) those who enslave others soon commence upon the business of enslaving one another
2.) culture is rapidly becoming a laboratory for the development of intellectual and spiritual disease
3.) rapidly losing the crucial awareness that those guided by lies are headed towards insanity