IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[CyberGnu]

Assuming that is correct, I simply wouldn't have had anything more to say to him, as arguing with someone who thinks that way is impossible (see numerous threads involving Cybergnu that deal with that subject).

Feeling uncomfortable because you can't justify your views?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Vesayen
What do you think would happen?

They'd get the state they want much faster then by killing scores of civilians....

Discuss

hi ,

nothing , why , simple , they dont want to demonstrate "peacefully" , ......

have a nice day

[CyberGnu]

?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
The settlement blocks ARE in continuity with Israel. get your facts straight. I didn't say that all settlements were, but the blocks, where most of the Israeli population lives are. As to everything else, in a settlement they would be annexed, IF that's what to be agreed.

I'm sorry, what does blocks mean exactly? Not the settlements on the Jordan/West Bank border I guess or those long thin tendrils, of course you're right I guess, they are in continuity. What the hell does that mean? Continuity, does that make it better?

'fled'? do I feel irony in your post? do you claim that they were forcefully removed? Why then there is a non-jewish population in that region? Remind, you the article was written in the mid 90s, and the possible solutions to the crisis were considered. but I guess you don't care much for that.

AFAIK there are 30,000 Syrians or former Syrians in the Golan today. I don't really know if the Syrians fled or were forced to leave but in my estimation if an individual leaves his home during a war and then is not allowed back he is expelled. There is no excuse for not allowing someone to go back to their home. I read the whole damn article, what do you want from me. I'm just saying I found it a difficult read. I would give you articles to read except most of my knowledge comes from books and I can't seem to find anything that isn't so heavily skewed in the other direction that I wouldn't even wish it upon you.

The only reason Syria wants the golan is because "it's theirs". Like a big "up yours, Israel". Not as actually they care what is going on there, as much as their leadership doesn't care for the rest of their country. But heck, If I'd think there would be the possiblity of a stable peace with Syria, without any confrontation from Lebanon as well, I'd give it away. But guess what? That just ain't going to happen.

This is the best part of the article, though I failed to mention it. He says how valuable the Golan is to Israel, defense, agriculture, water and then he gives only that reason for Syria wanting it completely discounting the fact that they might want it for the same reasons! Why were 100,000 Syrians(a conservative estimate from Israeli sources) living on the Golan before the war? Could they have possibly thought it was valuable?!?!?

Edit - oh yeah, and it is theirs after all.

[gsmoove23]

Another gorilla attack from Panag

[GePap]

I have never seen ery good evidence that Israel ever planned, from the outset of 1967, give back Gaza or the west bank. The Sinai and Golan are somewhat different.

Israel did start building settlements in the west bank rater quickly, and Gaza was aways though of as seperate from the Sinai, which is why it was never givn abck to Egypt. As for the West bank, given Israel stance that there was no such thing as Palestians until the late 70's and early 80's, all plans to "give th land back" were plans were Jordan got some civil control of it. After all, The West bank is historic Judea. The coats were almost never in the hands of the Israelites, so if the notion is that the Jewish people are returning to the land, why give up those lands that were most closely associated with Israel of old?

As for the Golan, I don't think Israel is really in any hurry to give it back: they have a simple stalemate with Syria (Israel knows a war with Syria is not desireable but easily winnable) and the water situation is such that control of the Sea of Galilee is crucial.

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
?

hi ,

yes anti-semite you forget that huh , people like you shall make sure that whatever peacefull demonstration there is , becomes filled with violence , .........

since you dont know a thing about the situation , the country or its people the only thing you can post is "?" , .......

have a nice , even to you anti-semite

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap
I have never seen ery good evidence that Israel ever planned, from the outset of 1967, give back Gaza or the west bank. The Sinai and Golan are somewhat different.

Israel did start building settlements in the west bank rater quickly, and Gaza was aways though of as seperate from the Sinai, which is why it was never givn abck to Egypt. As for the West bank, given Israel stance that there was no such thing as Palestians until the late 70's and early 80's, all plans to "give th land back" were plans were Jordan got some civil control of it. After all, The West bank is historic Judea. The coats were almost never in the hands of the Israelites, so if the notion is that the Jewish people are returning to the land, why give up those lands that were most closely associated with Israel of old?

As for the Golan, I don't think Israel is really in any hurry to give it back: they have a simple stalemate with Syria (Israel knows a war with Syria is not desireable but easily winnable) and the water situation is such that control of the Sea of Galilee is crucial.

hi ,

ever heard the jordan or egypt talk about giving back the land they had under control , ..........

more BS with capital letters from people who know zip about the situation , .......

then again , you cant blaim them , its not there families who get blown up , .......

its not them who welcomed us with flowers when we liberated gaza , ........

have a nice day

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

Quote:

The only reason Syria wants the golan is because "it's theirs". Like a big "up yours, Israel". Not as actually they care what is going on there, as much as their leadership doesn't care for the rest of their country. But heck, If I'd think there would be the possiblity of a stable peace with Syria, without any confrontation from Lebanon as well, I'd give it away. But guess what? That just ain't going to happen.

This is the best part of the article, though I failed to mention it. He says how valuable the Golan is to Israel, defense, agriculture, water and then he gives only that reason for Syria wanting it completely discounting the fact that they might want it for the same reasons! Why were 100,000 Syrians(a conservative estimate from Israeli sources) living on the Golan before the war? Could they have possibly thought it was valuable?!?!?

Edit - oh yeah, and it is theirs after all.

GS, You are right, of course. The Golan has critical water sources that Israel needs to survive. When Syria began to divert the water for its own uses, Israel was forced into a war situation almost as critical as when Nasser blockaded the Straights of Tiran.

What the Israeli's faced with both Syrian water diversion and the closing of the Straights was almost as bad as what the Japanese faced when we, the Brits and the Dutch cut it off from access to oil. They had to capitulate or attack. Israel in '67 had the same choice, but their capitulation probably meant mass slaughter if its citizens.

So, knowing this, the only way Israel could give back the Golan today is if there was some guarantee on continued access to the Golan water resources. If Syria were willing to make the commitment, I think they may have a real possibility of getting it back.

[Az]

Israel did start building settlements in the west bank rater quickly,

I am not sure if that was governmental authority actually pushing in that direction. There were lots of private initiative in that sense, certainly. ( Seen that historically... well , what you said. )

and Gaza was aways though of as seperate from the Sinai, which is why it was never givn abck to Egypt.

Yes, well, it had all those palestinians egypt didn't want. I wouldn't even be surprised if Begin insisted on giving it to Egypt, but Saddat went all "uh-uh. No way we're taking them"..

As for the West bank, given Israel stance that there was no such thing as Palestians until the late 70's and early 80's, all plans to "give th land back" were plans were Jordan got some civil control of it. After all, The West bank is historic Judea. The coats were almost never in the hands of the Israelites, so if the notion is that the Jewish people are returning to the land, why give up those lands that were most closely associated with Israel of old?

Well, of course the only plans imaginable were to give it back to Jordan, after all, just leaving it as it is would be nuts. All that would happen is that the west bank would become a platform to attacks, any advantage gained against the arabs would be lost, and no peace on the eastern border would be ensured.

As for the Golan, I don't think Israel is really in any hurry to give it back: they have a simple stalemate with Syria (Israel knows a war with Syria is not desireable but easily winnable) and the water situation is such that control of the Sea of Galilee is crucial.

I agree fully with your analysis. IMO from a distanced pov the situation is rather interesting with Hizbollah losing all aledged moral ground on being a "resistance to occupation" group with the continuing attacks on Israeli soldiers along the border, even that Israel has retreated from all the territory, taunting Israel to counter-attack, though Israel has obligations to the US, to keep a lid on the conflicts here. On a personal view, this is dangerous. a total war, in the hands of the fanatics here.

[gsmoove23]

The water crisis was in the context of Israel planning water diversions in its own territory which would effect neighbouring countries. All diversions or allocations of water should be carried out with the agreement of all effected countries. Syria would have to make assurances that any allocations were done with certain guidelines in mind but their is no reason to assume that all the water should be Israel's and their is no reason to assume that Syria and Jordan don't also have a vital need for water.

[Az]

The water crisis was in the context of Israel planning water diversions in its own territory which would effect neighbouring countries. All diversions or allocations of water should be carried out with the agreement of all effected countries. Syria would have to make assurances that any allocations were done with certain guidelines in mind but their is no reason to assume that all the water should be Israel's and their is no reason to assume that Syria and Jordan don't also have a vital need for water.

you realize that Israel is DOWNSTREAM,right?

[HAND]

Sounds like Israel will have to talk to the Palestinian authorities at some point in the future.
I'm drawing a parellel with Northern Ireland here...The British Government started secretly talking to the IRA(Irish Republican Army- Terrorst group? To me? Yes) in 1992, enough though the IRA were still shooting and blowing up British civilians and soldiers for the next to two years until they agreed to a ceasefire as a result of those secret talks. It was shocking in '94 to hear that the British Government had been talking to the IRA for two years, but now 10 years after i'm glad they did.

There will always be those splitter groups who try and break the peace. The fire from which the fanatics come from, needs to be deprived of fuel. Give those fanatics less reasons to do what they do and over time there will be less and less fanatics.

[Az]

Sounds like Israel will have to talk to the Palestinian authorities at some point in the future.
I'm drawing a parellel with Northern Ireland here...The British Government started secretly talking to the IRA(Irish Republican Army- Terrorst group? To me? Yes) in 1992, enough though the IRA were still shooting and blowing up British civilians and soldiers for the next to two years until they agreed to a ceasefire as a result of those secret talks. It was shocking in '94 to hear that the British Government had been talking to the IRA for two years, but now 10 years after i'm glad they did.

There will always be those splitter groups who try and break the peace. The fire from which the fanatics come from, needs to be deprived of fuel. Give those fanatics less reasons to do what they do and over time there will be less and less fanatics.

The intensity of the conflict was much lower with the IRA. here, you had hundreds of dead (more than a thousand on the palestinian side) on both sides, with both sides sustaining massive civilian casualties. (although, ones are intentional and the others are not. However, it doesn't matter to the palestinians. )

[Arrian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Feeling uncomfortable because you can't justify your views?

I almost missed this little shot amongst the longer posts.

No, I am not at all uncomfortable, and I certainly can justify my view that there is such a thing as an innocent civilian. It's not difficult to do. Having argued with you about the concept several times, however, I have come to the conclusion that one either sees civilians are legit targets or they don't, and debating it is pointless.

-Arrian

[gsmoove23]

you realize that Israel is DOWNSTREAM,right?

Prior to 1967 Israel-Syria had an east-west border. Jordan was bordering Lake Tiberias, the National Water Carrier transferred water from the north of Israel to the south and coastal areas effecting the water table of the area, of the Jordan river basin, the level of Lake Tiberias. Plus, it diverted water from Jordan, which relied on THE Jordon quite heavily for its water. The diversion project was a JOINT arab project carried out in Syria.

If you're reffering to Syrian uses of the water, irrigation and drinking for the inhabitants of the Golan would be legal, major diversions of rivers would not under international law which Syria has promised to adhere to during peace discussions.

[Az]

don't bother Arrian.

[Az]

Prior to 1967 Israel-Syria had an east-west border. Jordan was bordering Lake Tiberias, the National Water Carrier transferred water from the north of Israel to the south and coastal areas effecting the water table of the area, of the Jordan river basin, the level of Lake Tiberias. Plus, it diverted water from Jordan, which relied on THE Jordon quite heavily for its water. The diversion project was a JOINT arab project carried out in Syria.

the water wasn't about to go to Jordan. It was about to go to Syria, in a JOINT arab project to screw Israel.

If you're reffering to Syrian uses of the water, irrigation and drinking for the inhabitants of the Golan would be legal, major diversions of rivers would not under international law which Syria has promised to adhere to during peace discussions.

what does this have to do with the military operations carried out by Israel to stop the water diversions in 67'?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
The intensity of the conflict was much lower with the IRA. here, you had hundreds of dead (more than a thousand on the palestinian side) on both sides, with both sides sustaining massive civilian casualties. (although, ones are intentional and the others are not. However, it doesn't matter to the palestinians. )

Should it matter to the palestinians? How about the ones who aren't terrorists and would be 'accidental' casualties when added to the thousands of others who are accidental. Can you honestly ask THEM to make the distinction?

[Az]

are you a numbwit? That's what I said myself. Or is it your way to agree with me....

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel

the water wasn't about to go to Jordan. It was about to go to Syria, in a JOINT arab project to screw Israel.

The project was a joint one (I'm sure Syria would have benefitted the most, though they also risked the most) and yes it was to screw Israel, in the context of the National Water Carrier project which screwed Israel's neighbours out of water. I don't aprove of either project, I just would like to avoid simplistic explanations of complex subjects.

Originally posted by Azazel
what does this have to do with the military operations carried out by Israel to stop the water diversions in 67'?

The post was in response to your 'downstream' response, why should I be talking about pre-1967 military operations? We're all way OT.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
(although, ones are intentional and the others are not. However, it doesn't matter to the palestinians. )

If thats what you meant I truly apologize, I thought this statement was more accusatory. Perhaps we should tone down our current escalation.

[Ned]

GSmoove, I agree that to the extent that Israeli diversions affect Jordan or Syria, they probably need to be subject to international cooperation. Unilateral action, as we have seen, can lead to war.

[gsmoove23]

Well, one agreement is better then none.

[Az]

The post was in response to your 'downstream' response, why should I be talking about pre-1967 military operations? We're all way OT.

the downstream respons was in the pre 67' context. only in pre-67 borders, Israel was 'downstream' below the slopes of the golan heights.

another correction: Niether Jordan nor Syria had access to the waters of lake tiberias pre 67'.

[gsmoove23]

Syria had access to the waters, though Israel didn't recognize it, in the same way they had access to the East banks of the Jordan just south of Lake Tiberias. I just found this article that seems to be even-handed and told me a lot I didn't know about the Syrian-Israeli border. Tell me what you think.

http://www.mideastinsight.org/9_99/l...ne67_9.99.html

[Az]

It had been drawn with water—water for the Jewish Home—very much on the minds of British boundary negotiators

not so even handed, huh? Takes the fact that the british were always pro-Israeli as a basic stance.

*continues reading*

[Az]

This clearly states that according to the armstice, the eastern shore of the lake would be demilitarized, i.e. not syrian, and the lake's water resources would be Israeli by default, as Israel controlled the other bank.

[GePap]

The probem Syria has with water is that it is dowstream from Turkey, which has control of the major water resources of this part of the ME, and since Turkey is using up huge amounts of water for its own, Syria will be in desperate water straits. The only state that in a fulls ense is NOT downstream is Turkey.

Also I will ignore Panag's statements completely. Statements like those add nothing of value to this discussion.

On to 500 posts!

[Az]

Also I will ignore Panag's statements completely. Statements like those add nothing of value to this discussion.

I agree.

*twilight zone music*

Niether do Cybergnu's.

The probem Syria has with water is that it is dowstream from Turkey, which has control of the major water resources of this part of the ME, and since Turkey is using up huge amounts of water for its own, Syria will be in desperate water straits. The only state that in a fulls ense is NOT downstream is Turkey.

tough. should have developed their water resourses wisely.
Israel has the same problem, But we import water from turkey, and start desalinization programs.