Israel: Golan Heights Up for Grabs?

[zainulhuda]

"The USA's capability to "destroy a Country" for all intents and purposes, still exists, and is in fact arguably greater now than in 2003. If any country SERIOUSLY p**ed off the US again, I'd suggest they'd probably just flatten said Country's military, destroy it's Government (ruin the economy in the process) and then leave saying "best of luck" and don't do it again."

Isn’t that the point behind bombing not being a useful tool in the long run? Of course "useful" would depend upon how you were defining your objectives; ruining infrastructure, economy etc., and the U.S would accomplish that, but at what cost. Like wittmanace pointed out, the Muslim street, for the most part, whether Shia or Sunni sort of admires and respects Iran for standing up to the big bad U.S.A. I’m not sure the overall perception of the U.S in the aftermath would not go further down the tube.

Plus, how does creating another mass of rubble ala Afghanistan or Iraq, improve the security equation? You are going to have sixty million more people with dying children, unable to provide for their families because "guess who" bombed them "back to the stone age" (as some Americans are fond of saying). Its much better, IMO, to engage the Iranians and let the Mullahs have a shot at making their “pure Islamic” state work. We have engaged the Chinese after all and if anything, they have not repeated Tiananmen Square again.

In how many situations has the U.S policy of isolation, sanctions and "punishment" actually brought about the desired "change"? You just keep postponing the day you have to deal with the issue and in the meantime your opponent keeps getting more and more fundamentalist and desperate with less and less to lose.

 

[eckherl]

aussie digger....i did say it wasnt all that scary 'to those people involved'. my point here is how they see it. the threat of force only works if the enemy is scared. i not saying the us cant do it, im saying the people involved here (ahmadinejad and so forth) really dont seem scared.

the probelm for the us miltary is not a lack of arms or equipment, but that i just cant see the population (civilian) being willing to face another war so soon in the middle east, or against a state that many might believe might use chem bio weapons in a terrorist manner. their hands are tied.

i was also stating how iran, for example, sees the situation.....it can be different from reality but doesnt change how it seems to be perceived by iran.
and, respectfully, i disagree about hezbollah not winning. its like saying the soviet union didnt win 'the great patriotic war' because they lost more men than nazi germany. their objective was to inflict casualties on israel and be seen to be freedom fighters and to garner more support in lebanon, as well as taking heat off the occupied territories. all these things occured. israel sought to destroy hezbollah and appear stronger. neither happened...

I will agree with you that Israel did not reach their objectives or goals that they set out to accomplish, rest assured that if they have to go in again they will be prepared and fight a different style war.

Please do not under estimate my country, yes we do not like wars and would rather live in peace but if we are attacked we will not hesitate to attack and destroy any countries government that had anything to do with it.
American people realize that their are alot of countries out there that would like to see our way of life utterly destroyed and our people destroyed, we can turn on CNN every 15 minutes and see countries like North Korea and Iran who talk about going to war or destroying different races of people, this actually will have a reverse effect with Americans, it pretty much pisses us off and we will not hide but face any threat thrown at us.
Don`t let the Iraqi war fool you on our resolve.

 

[wittmanace]

this seems to be getting too political..

my poimt is that in order to attain peace, one has to make peace with ones enemies. agreeing with ones allies doesnt do it. its like the syria/iran/ israel issue. there wont be the certainty of peace unless there is peace between israel and these states. its that simple. peace cannot exist simply as a consequence of israel and america agreeing on the one hand and iran agreeing with syria on the other hand. the two camps must meet and must create peace. in that region of the world, it is clear that peace cannot be won through force...

as this is a debate concerning the golan, lets look at the history of the region...its clear that force simply is no longer a possible long term solution.

i might get slated for this, but i cant see israel suriving in its current form. i think eventually there will have to be a two state solution or another similar approach, perhaps with current israel assimilating more surrounding territory such as the west bank and working more towards incorporating palestinians in the country. this is not an anti semitic idea at all, i might add. this would allow for the easing of tensions and allow peace to exist. hamas refusing to recognise israel and israel failing to see that hamas won democratic elections and are the palestinian government doesnt help.... keeping the occupied territories as they currently do does also no good for the situation in the region.

it is in all parties involved's interests for the occupation of the 1967 gained territories to end and for talks with the aim of a two state solution to resume, and resume in earnest. in this issue, i simply dont see it as a good vs bad as a simple issue, nor is it black and white. both sides act upon real situations, and not through a purely defensive and innocent point of view. this has to be recognised, without it being either anti semitic or anti palestinian. talk of huge vengeful actions whether in defence or not simply havent worked until now, theres no reason to believe they will now.

for reasons of demographics, and partly due to politics, it would also be in israels interests to seek other alternatives at this time. it is also in the palestinians interests. neither side here is stupid, and it seems that the carrot shouyld be emphasised more than the stick as this would work better, or at least allow for progress. talk of one nation destroying another, whichever the states involved are, simply isnt an answer, and, in this region, will not lead to peace in the long or short term.

the military success pr not in lebanon by israel is overclouded by the political and international loss, in PR. this illustrates the point. we should also be very aware that it didnt seem like the ussr would collapse before it did, as an example. a positive example here is south africa, where the massive change has ended bloodshed and has gone relatively smoothly to peace, in contrast with the war against front line states in the 60s and 70s (rhodesia, namibia, angola, mozambique, etc). this should be the model to pursue, for both parties, rather than any military. it should be noted that south africa did not loose in the field (though i think cuito canavale was their loss....), but lost politically in this global PR....

thus, military action doesnt seem to be the solution for israel nor palestine, lest they become like pakistan and india or worse when they do have a two state system. this is in no means a slate on either side, simply an indicator that there are limits to what the military can achieve in this situation.

i also believe that israel cannot win militarily entireyl, as she will always have hostile neighbours in her current form with no existant palestinian state. the fact is that the region is against her on the whole, and israel, however powerful, cannot change that fact through a war with syria or iran or egypt, whether she wins militarily or not, as history has shown.

this by no means demeans israels military capability, which is immense. it also by no means slates her population. it simply reflects the lessons of history, the demographic situation and the reality of the region. this region is a very good example of the lesson that military victory cannot always ensure the desired political outcome. if one considers the war in lebanon a victory for israel, then it is surely a political and PR pyrrhic victory, no?

 

[Mardini]

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

Last I heard a hezbollah style syrian insurgency group is being formed to operate in the Golan hights within a months from now in case no diplomatic progress is achieved