Israel: Golan Heights Up for Grabs?

watchman

New Member
Israel: Golan Heights Up for Grabs?

http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2504

No sooner had Syrian President Bashar Assad declared a diplomatic war on Israel than the Jewish state raised the flag of surrender.

Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah’s prime benefactors. Accusations flew at Syria from Israel and the West during the recent month-long conflict in Lebanon for its obvious contribution to Hezbollah’s hostilities against Israel. Indeed, in the days preceding the commencement of Hezbollah missile strikes, top-level meetings were held in Damascus between Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah officials. But—just in case there was any confusion as to where Syria stands—following the enactment of the cease-fire, the Syrian president declared, “[T]he resistance [Hezbollah] has won the war, and now we must win the diplomatic battle as well.” And what precisely was he referring to? “[T]he Golan Heights will be liberated by Syria,” he proclaimed.

That is what makes Israel’s comments just days later all the more shocking.

On August 21, Israel’s Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter stated: “In exchange for peace with Syria, Israel can leave the Golan Heights.”

Michael Freund, a columnist who once served in Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration, wrote:

Just days after Syria’s president spoke openly of “liberating” the Golan Heights by force, a prominent Israeli government minister has now signaled a willingness to surrender to Damascus’s demands.

In a thinly-veiled trial balloon aimed at testing public opinion, Israel’s Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter said today that he believes that in exchange for peace with Syria, the Jewish state can abandon the Golan.

That’s right—Dichter is ready to hand over the commanding heights of the Golan to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, the same guy who helped to arm, train and finance Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.

In an interview with the Trumpet in 1999, Yohanan Ramati, director of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defense, elaborated on the strategic importance of the Golan Heights for Israel:

We need to be in a position, in a war that is conducted by conventional means, first of all, to have a deterrent which prevents them from starting a war. Deterrence means, first and foremost, to have the Golan Heights. The Syrians are afraid to attack us because we are sitting there, and we are 40 miles from Damascus, holding the high ground and holding the watershed. We know what is happening over there; they do not know what is happening in Israel. The moment they get even half of the Golan, including Mt. Hermon and all those mountains, the situation will be reversed.

So, the Golan Heights—territory in northern Israel secured in the 1967 war—in addition to containing over a third of Israel’s vital water resources, is essential for Israel’s security. (Prior to 1967, Syria used the Golan as a base for sniper attacks and to shell Israeli towns; it also disrupted Israel’s water supply.)

Syria, however, has consistently demanded Israel’s withdrawal. “The issue of retaking the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights has haunted Syria for decades,” wrote Stratfor, “and has remained almost an obsession for Assad” (August 16).

Not to miss an opportunity, Syria has used the conflict in Lebanon to bring the Golan issue back to the negotiating table (where it has been, off and on, since the 1990s). The August 26 Boston Globe reported:

The month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah has put the Golan Heights back on the political agenda on both sides of the border, because Syria has a potentially powerful influence over how long the fragile cease-fire in southern Lebanon will last.

Syria could help Hezbollah rearm and rebuild, continuing to supply it with weapons, and allow Iranian arms to flow through its borders to the militia. Or it could ease off its support for Hezbollah, something it’s not likely to do unless, perhaps, Israel and the United States offer new hope of getting back the Golan.

In other words, Syria is in a position to blackmail Israel. Will Israel concede more land for an offer of peace? If it were up to its internal security minister, the answer would likely be yes. Israel’s defense minister, Amir Peretz, seems to be of the same opinion: “Every war creates an opportunity for a new political process … we must hold a dialogue with Lebanon, and we should create the conditions for dialogue also with Syria,” he said August 15 (Stratfor, op. cit.).

Syria could hardly be in a more enviable situation—and it knows it. On August 15, Assad announced, “We tell them [Israelis] that after tasting humiliation in the latest battles, your weapons are not going to protect you—not your planes, or missiles or even your nuclear bombs …. They [Israel] should know that they are before a historic crossroads. Either they move toward peace and the return of [Arab] rights or they move in the direction of continued instability …” (ibid.). An ultimatum if ever there was one.

A week later, Israel’s Dichter stated, “I think that a process of discussions with Syria is legitimate. … Israel can initiate it. … We attempted with the Palestinian Authority, but unfortunately it didn’t succeed. But that doesn’t mean that with other countries like Lebanon or Syria it won’t succeed, and maybe this will make it clear to the Palestinians that there is no chance for any state to make achievements through war with us.”

Where exactly has he been for the past six weeks?

Of course, with Israel’s politics in disarray, just where such rhetoric will go is another matter. But that it should even be talked about at a time when Israel’s enemies are on the offensive is astonishing. It also demonstrates the defeatist stance that Israel’s leadership has become comfortable with. As Freund said, what Israel’s politicians who signal a readiness to retreat have yet to learn is that “in the Middle East, raising the flag of surrender only invites further aggression and bloodshed.”

A nation that finds itself backing down while its enemies encroach on every side is in a dangerous position indeed.
:confused:
 

KGB

New Member
Some speeches are meant for internal consuption. The syrians can't even protect their presidential palace from the israeli air force.
 

.pt

New Member
Again Politics.

Anyway, and taking in acount that what was said might just be a ruse, the essential is that the syrians are saying: If Israel gives up the golan heights, we will make sure that lebanon, and the Hizbollah will cease to be a problem to Israel.
In my opinion, this will not fly, not at this moment, it´s just something of a government grasping at straws, as was said in the article, or just plain disinformation.
In my opinion, it would be a bad trade for the Israelis.
What are the guaranties regarding Lebanon and the Hizbollah? and lets not forget Iran, they night not agree and push Hizbolah on and on.
With the Syrians, perhaqps, an agreement could be reached, but with Hizbollah, and ensuring they would comply seems impossible.
Not forgeting that for the Israelis, negociating this, after this conflict, would send the wrong message to some people, possibly enticing old temptations, and conflicts. In the past, peace acords negociated with Israel neigbours, were signed in a position of force, and after bloody violent wars, that these countries started, or joined, ending with bad result for them.
.pt
 

contedicavour

New Member
KGB said:
Some speeches are meant for internal consuption. The syrians can't even protect their presidential palace from the israeli air force.
Clearly... Syria has all to gain by remaining calm right now. It might regain some influence over Lebanon and over the Middle Eastern public opinion overall. The moment it provokes Israel the whole thing comes collapsing down, with tragic consequences for all.

Btw, anyone who has looked at a map of the Golan Heights will realize that nobody would be able to dislodge a modern army sitting on top of them and profiting from air superiority.

cheers
 

.pt

New Member
contedicavour said:
Btw, anyone who has looked at a map of the Golan Heights will realize that nobody would be able to dislodge a modern army sitting on top of them and profiting from air superiority.

cheers
I beg to disagree there. Just look at what hapened in the 1973 yom kipur war.
the syrians almost achieved that, and they took mount hermon radar station from the Israelis. And at the time the Israelis had air superiority altough they didn´t control the air above that area, cortesy of Sams and the effort going on in the sinai front.
In fact the Israelis endured by the thinnest of margins, an had, at a certain point the syrians pushed harder, with the Jordans and the Iraquis, the story would have been different. This is told in several books, by the Israelis and other independent sources.
True, the golan heights are a formidable defensive position, but they are not impossible to take. Its just that the Syrians currently don´t have the means, and the will to do something about it. No USSR to supply armor and finance a war.
Other mountains were taken, in other batlefields, in the past. Always at great cost, but its not impossible.
.pt
 

contedicavour

New Member
.pt said:
I beg to disagree there. Just look at what hapened in the 1973 yom kipur war.
the syrians almost achieved that, and they took mount hermon radar station from the Israelis. And at the time the Israelis had air superiority altough they didn´t control the air above that area, cortesy of Sams and the effort going on in the sinai front.
In fact the Israelis endured by the thinnest of margins, an had, at a certain point the syrians pushed harder, with the Jordans and the Iraquis, the story would have been different. This is told in several books, by the Israelis and other independent sources.
True, the golan heights are a formidable defensive position, but they are not impossible to take. Its just that the Syrians currently don´t have the means, and the will to do something about it. No USSR to supply armor and finance a war.
Other mountains were taken, in other batlefields, in the past. Always at great cost, but its not impossible.
.pt
You are right about 1973 history. My point, as you mention in your post, is more about today's relative capabilities. An air force with standoff missile capabilities, anti-missile missiles and ECM can today easily handle enemy SAM batteries. Today's artillery is so much more accurate against enemy armoured units approaching well entrenched defensive positions. Last but not least, early warning systems such as drones reduce to nil any chance of a massive suprise attack.
That's why I believe the IDF cannot in any case be pushed out of the Golan heights unless by a political deal.
Hezbollahs for all their successes in Lebanon can run guerrilla operations but not expel an entrenched army from such a natural fortress. Today's regular Arab armies are less capable today than in 1973. So basically there's nobody to pull off such an exploit !

cheers
 

moughoun

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
of course it all come's down to the question, could Syria reign in Hezbollah?....my answear would be probably not, it's not really Syria's show anymore, it's Iran's, yes Syria could give Israel a sort of peace, but Syria would then have to face a very disgruntled Iran on it's Eastern border, now for all the problem's Syria has with Israel, atleast the Israeli's are rational about what they want, Iran might not be so...."forgiving" of a syrian peace deal though, maybe angry enough to want to hurt Syria.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
But it may well be a worthy trade. we know that Syria and Iran have formed some sort of alliance and we see the devastating effect of such an alliance. Unlike a religiously fanatics Ahmedinejad, Bashar is a secular leader and a dictator. a dictator's ambition is to look good on it's subjects (take Anwar Sadat for example). if Israel concede Golan heights to syria, there's a strong probability that bashar will take this as a victory, severe it's alliance with Iran, sign a peace deal with Israel and deprive hezbollah a continuous supply route to Iran. it's a short term defeat to gain a long term victory.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Awang se said:
if Israel concede Golan heights to syria, there's a strong probability that bashar will take this as a victory, severe it's alliance with Iran, sign a peace deal with Israel and deprive hezbollah a continuous supply route to Iran. it's a short term defeat to gain a long term victory.
Dream on :p3

Syria won't stop until Israel is gone.
 
i think syria will make peace with israel if israel return back the golan to them. the syrians have said this publicly many times. its not in their interest to continue being a foe of israel. israel is far superior militarily and would always have the US support in any conflict with syria due to the israeli lobbies in washington. israel neightbors have come to the realization they can't "drive the israelis to the sea" as we have seen by the land for peace deal offered by then crown prince abdullah of saudi Arabia in 2002. it is also in israel's interest to make peace with its neighbors because the israeli people is getting tried of constantly having to send their sons and daughter off to war. World opinion has turned against them due the occupation and the conflict in lebanon.
 
Last edited:

.pt

New Member
The problem here is that, any peace treaty to be signed between Israel and Syria, might work for some time, as said by awang and radiosilence. But i stress, for some time, perhaps a very limited one.
Even countries such a Egypt and jordan, wich have peace treaties with Israel for some 30 years, can at anytime, and due to the nature of those countries regimes, turn their backs on those treaties. This is because, ever since the inception of the state of Israel, and i don´t want to argue, if that is right or wrong, the majority of those Arab countries populations, are against the idea of this Jewish state. This is fact. Even if the political leadership of those countries (most of them dictatorships of some kind) signs peace treaties with this enemy, they do not really want peace, it´s been imposed to them on the battlefield.
As long as those populations, and their leadership, don´t recognise Israel right to exist (i do not argue this right, if it exists or not), then, at some point, when they perceive a chance to wipe out, or hurt badly their enemy, war will break out, peace treaty or not. that´s my view.
Thats the reason Israel will always strive to keep an eye on their neigbours, strike first if possible, and in an disproportionate way, so that temptations on the other side are checked. I don´t think that they spend all that money and effort on defence, just because they are warmongers or think that war is fun.
In this deadly game, Lebanon (hizbollah) and in a way, the Palestinians, act as surrogates or pawns, to cinically serve other countries interests, and they get to pay the terrible price that comes with that situation. Those countries do not supply weapons and financement just because they intend to help their "Arab friends", they just have an agenda of their own.
As for the realization that these countries cannot drive Israelis out to the sea, i don ´t think late events prove that. Just look at the noises Iran is making. For now it´s just noise, but in a few years who knows?
.pt
 

Scorpius

New Member
Israel have some of these nuclear landmines or whatever deployed in Golan Heights,right?
ha how will Syria overcome them?Can any Arab military overcome these defences?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I really doubt that they deployed any kind of nuclear mine out there.
This would mean they would go nuclear right at the beginning of hostilities and this would be much too early.
Nuclear mines were not even at the height of cold war deployed permanently at the german border.
 

Rich

Member
You are both right and wrong about the Golan and 1973. During that war the Syrians had such a numerical advantage, and still failed to win the Golan, its hard to feature them being able to accomplish it now with the current balance of forces. In 1973 they were numero uno of client states of the mighty Soviet Empire and what are they now? They are another failed Arab Dictatorship with a rusty military that belongs in another era. And the same wretched leadership. The Israelis meanwhile posses a military machine unmatched in the region. Most of all in air power.

So while an enemy might do OK scurrying around the hovels of Southern Lebanon and drawing the Israelis into "their" kind of war. An attack on the Golan would be fighting the Israelis kind of war. It wouldn't even be amusing and I'd be surprised if any Syrian armor even survived en route to the heights. The Syrians had better stay with terror tactics rather then getting into a high-tech war, the kind they have never been able to understand in the first place.
 

KGB

New Member
Syria's posturings I think are nothing more than that. Dictators need bogeymen so to keep their citizen's in line. Israel has provided this role for many goverments in that area, not just Syria. The syrian president is also interested in regaining influence lost after the Hariri assasination. Supporting Hezbollah is for them usefull because it makes the goverment look good, the same way politicians want to be seen with sports heroes in more fortunate countries. Now for Israel, Syria is also serving as a bogeyman for some quarters. Politics yes, but that is the reason no invasion of the Golan heights will occur anytime soon.
 

contedicavour

New Member
What sort of defence Israel could organize if it decided to hand back the Golan Heights ? I've looked at maps and I see no remaining natural obstacles between the Golan Heights and the Mediterranean. Even if the IDF decided to keep more permanently active brigades in high alert against any invasion from Golan Heights, it would still expose a lot of Israeli territory to (i) artillery attacks from Russian-built 122 and 152mm (ii) increased air attack risks, since the radars on top of the Golan Heights are very effective alert systems (iii) sudden attacks/incursions from armored colums.
Considering all of this, I believe that from a military point of view Israel should never give up the Golan Heights.

cheers
 

Rich

Member
The Golan is very rich in fresh water, which also means its very productive farmland. Everyone talks about its strategic value but the truth is its fresh water is just as important. Israel has a much larger population today then it had in 1967 and I just cant see them giving the keys to 1/3 their fresh water supply to the Syrians.
 
^israel also needs oil maybe it can grab a few oil fields from saudi arabia. i guess international borders doesn't matter when it comes to israel...
 

Rich

Member
radiosilence said:
^israel also needs oil maybe it can grab a few oil fields from saudi arabia. i guess international borders doesn't matter when it comes to israel...
Borders tend to have less legitimacy after a Dictatorship, bent on the total annihilation of your people, attacks you without provocation. Most of all if/when such return of territory wouldn't result in a peace deal and instead would give trememdous strategic advantage to the Dictatorship bent on destroying you.
 
Top