Should Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria?

[Chieftain]

syrian land should be returned to syria god forbid if the arabs had managed to reverse the situation drastically the US govt would be up in arms threatening to invade the arab nations to return israeli land.
israel wants peace then returning to pre-1967 borders is a great idea.
on the other side hamas will be licking its wounds for quite a while to lanch a vast amount of rockets into israel after the overkill from the IDF they wont be planning on initiating another war any time soon

Why are the 1967 borders sacrosanct? Rather arbitrary. Most nations have borders won or lost by war. The Arabs lost again.

What part of land for peace don't you understand? That is exactly what they did in Gaza, and got hammered for it. Most folks learn life and death decisions pretty fast. When it is themselves or family's life or death we are talking about.

And why do you call it over kill? They are trying to stop folks that choose to launch their terror weapons amoungst the innocent.

If Australia was being bombarded and Australians being killed and wounded? Would you folks just slap the hands of the guys bombarding your country. Or would you try to stop it. Even though those that are bombarding your country launch out of civilian areas, to draw more civilian casualties when the inevitable counter attack happens.

And when you do finally decide enough Australians have been killed and maimed, you act. Now as Karl Marx called them "useful idiots" will insist that your response is over kill.

It matters who leads a people or country. There can be terrible consequences for those being led. Always has, and always will be. I would not want Hama's as my leadership.

Go figure.

Fred

[Parihaka]

Why are the 1967 borders sacrosanct?

Because it leaves Israel virtually unviable as a country to defend. Thus the Jews are once more at the mercy of Europe's whims for defence.

[BadKharma]

Because it leaves Israel virtually unviable as a country to defend. Thus the Jews are once more at the mercy of Europe's whims for defence.

Now it all makes sense. I think that perfectly answers the question.

[Chieftain]

Because it leaves Israel virtually unviable as a country to defend. Thus the Jews are once more at the mercy of Europe's whims for defence.

HUH?

Just the opposite my friend. Holding Gaza not only controls the Palestinians, It also gives Israel a buffer against Egypt.

And of course the Golan Heights are the high ground and control the observation of the valley's all around.

The West Bank is unchanged, but there the Palestinian governing authority is NOT Hamas and can have and have had some very slow viable negotiations. It is slow but it is working.

Go figure.

Fred

[BadKharma]

I decided to brush up on the myths and facts since I am seeing allot of false information posted in this thread.
MYTH
“The creation of Israel in 1948 changed political and border arrangements between independent states that had existed for centuries.”
FACT
The boundaries of Middle East countries were arbitrarily fixed by the Western powers after Turkey was defeated in World War I and the French and British mandates were set up. The areas allotted to Israel under the UN partition plan had all been under the control of the Ottomans, who had ruled Palestine from 1517 until 1917.
When Turkey was defeated in World War I, the French took over the area now known as Lebanon and Syria. The British assumed control of Palestine and Iraq. In 1926, the borders were redrawn and Lebanon was separated from Syria.
Britain installed the Emir Faisal, who had been deposed by the French in Syria, as ruler of the new kingdom of Iraq. In 1922, the British created the emirate of Transjordan, which incorporated all of Palestine east of the Jordan River. This was done so that the Emir Abdullah, whose family had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian peninsula, would have a Kingdom to rule. None of the countries that border Israel became independent until the Twentieth Century. Many other Arab nations became independent after Israel.

MYTH
“The West Bank is part of Jordan.”

FACT
The West Bank was never legally part of Jordan. Under the UN's 1947 partition plan — which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected — it was to have been part of an independent Arab state in western Palestine. But the Jordanian army invaded and occupied it during the 1948 war. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank.

Only two governments — Great Britain and Pakistan — formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did.

MYTH
“The Golan has no strategic significance for Israel.”

FACT
It is true that Syria — deterred by an IDF presence within artillery range of Damascus — has kept the Golan quiet since 1974. But during this time, Syria has provided a haven and supported numerous terrorist groups that attack Israel from Lebanon and other countries. These include the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Hizbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). In addition, Syria still deploys hundreds of thousands of troops — as much as 75 percent of its army — on the Israeli front near the Heights.

From the western Golan, it is only about 60 miles — without major terrain obstacles — to Haifa and Acre, Israel's industrial heartland. The Golan — rising from 400 to 1700 feet in the western section bordering on pre*1967 Israel — overlooks the Hula Valley, Israel's richest agricultural area. In the hands of a friendly neighbor, the escarpment has little military importance. If controlled by a hostile country, however, the Golan has the potential to again become a strategic nightmare for Israel. For Israel, relinquishing the Golan to a hostile Syria without adequate security arrangements could jeopardize its early-warning system against surprise attack. Israel has built radar systems on Mt. Hermon, the highest point in the region. If Israel withdrew from the Golan and had to relocate these facilities to the lowlands of the Galilee, they would lose much of their strategic effectiveness.

[Parihaka]

HUH?

Just the opposite my friend. Holding Gaza not only controls the Palestinians, It also gives Israel a buffer against Egypt.

And of course the Golan Heights are the high ground and control the observation of the valley's all around.

The West Bank is unchanged, but there the Palestinian governing authority is NOT Hamas and can have and have had some very slow viable negotiations. It is slow but it is working.

Go figure.

Fred

What I meant was that trying to push Israel into the pre 1967 war boundaries is an attempt to weaken Israel, because the pre 1967 war boundaries are virtually undefendable.

[thunderous]

Spoils of war to the victor

[667medic]

Syria has every right to demand the return of Golan and Israel has every right to show the finger to Syria.

Syrians want access to the Sea of Galilee and that's not going to happen because both Israel and Jordan depend on the Sea of Galilee for water....

[Chieftain]

What I meant was that trying to push Israel into the pre 1967 war boundaries is an attempt to weaken Israel, because the pre 1967 war boundaries are virtually undefendable.

Roger that, Sir.

Good luck.

Fred

[Thomas1016]

In the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the Israeli military captured the strategically important Golan Heights from Syria. It was then annexed by Israel in 1981. Syria has demanded that Israel return 100% of the Golan Heights in return for a peace treaty and recognition. Do you think that Israel ought to retain the Golan Heights, or return it to Syria for a comprehensive peace agreement? Would such a peace treaty truly bring security to Israel, or would a return of the Golan Heights increase Israel's strategic vulnerability?

Kinda funny how countries that attack and invade another country. Then get beat back and lose territory in the process think they should not pay a penalty for their actions. It is like they are saying ohh, sorry we were just kidding we really did not mean to attack you. ;) I think it was pretty magnanimous of Israel to give Egypt their land back. Syria however I don't believe is really serious about having peace with Israel.

[JOgershok]

Kinda funny how countries that attack and invade another country. Then get beat back and lose territory in the process think they should not pay a penalty for their actions. It is like they are saying ohh, sorry we were just kidding we really did not mean to attack you. ;) I think it was pretty magnanimous of Israel to give Egypt their land back. Syria however I don't believe is really serious about having peace with Israel.

Well you did it for Egypt why not us? We are good guys too;);).

[Chieftain]

Well you did it for Egypt why not us? We are good guys too

Sadat accepted Israel's right of existence, and formally recognized the Jewish state. That was a HUGE reason Egypt got it's land back.

Syria has not.

Go figure.

Fred

[JOgershok]

Sadat accepted Israel's right of existence, and formally recognized the Jewish state. That was a HUGE reason Egypt got it's land back.

Syria has not.

Go figure.

Fred

You omitted my sarcasm:

Well you did it for Egypt why not us? We are good guys too. ;),;), NOD

How true.

[dfg209]

The Golan heights is very important, militarily and strategically. In Syria's hands, it allows them a great vantage to gather intelligence on Israel. Also, it means that should in the advent of war, the Israelis will need to mount the tall slopes of the heights (Not that I'm doubting the IDF's ability - they already did it once).

On a small note: As far as I know, Syria's full of terrorists, or at least, weapons are smuggled through her.

In Israel's hands, importantly it denies the advantages above to Syria in war. Resources and other benefits (such as water, taxes, natural reasouces?) that go towards the better of Israel, not to the Terrorist supporting Syria.

As far as I'm concerned, Israelis should keep the heights. Tell the Syrian's to stick it!:))

[Freeloader]

No.

What purpose do the Syrians needs it for again? Other than it's strategic position, it is not a valuable piece of land for Syria, there is no oil, no nothing. On the other hand if Syria has it, it puts Israel into a jeopardizing situation not just by potential positioning of Syrian forces, but also within reach of Israel's main fresh water supply. It would be stupid stupid move for the Israelis to give it away.

The purpose for it is as you said - water. (I think there are ski slopes there too). Syria would probably like the land for water, but it would also be a future exploitable piece of land. It would be unwise if Israel gave it up, and yet it is no their land. Syria owned it even before Israel was created, so I can see why they are mad, and justifiably so.

There would have to be some type of massive peace treaty along the lines of what Israel and Egypt did (something that has worked out OK so far) to make it worthwhile. Perhaps Israel could purchase the land, or make a trade of something for it that Syria would accept and maybe even rather have.

My understanding was that tensions with the Druize (sp?) and Israelis living there were rare, and travel into Syria was for the most part, acceptable and accessible.