See, it is possible - Israel and Syria have been talking

[Tribesman]

They're just so valuable that Israel isn't willing to let them go, that and the amazing heroic efforts of the Israeli defenders.

Isn't occupiers the correct word there Vlad ?
It is after all not Israeli land , and they were the ones who attacked , plus they had been shelling the heights for 3 years previously , initially targetting construction workers if my memory serves me correctly .

Anyhow Israel is willing to let them go , if there is a viable deal over the water , though in truth Syria will try to tie a water deal with Israel into getting its own water deal from Turkey which Turkey is unlikely to agree to .

[Adrian II]

Isn't occupiers the correct word there Vlad ?
It is after all not Israeli land , and they were the ones who attacked , plus they had been shelling the heights for 3 years previously , initially targetting construction workers if my memory serves me correctly .

Yeah sure, construction workers...

If memory serves correctly, the Golan was used by Syria years before the Six-Day War (1967) to shell Israeli farms and villages. On the Syrian side of the so-called Demilitarized Zone there were no civilians, only military personnel.

Israel occupied the Golan in 1967 and re-took it after a horrendous battle in 1973. Israeli youth still sing songs about the boys who died on the road to Damascus.

Israel will not likely give it up, unless as part of an enduring overall settlement for the region. And rightly so. You don't give the dictator in Damascus a foothold on the Golan, because he and his Iranian friends will start using it as a platform for missile attacks the next day.

If we want to help bring about fundamental change in that region, people like you and me had better think in terms of such an overall settlement instead of relying on false memories and myths about the original innocence of one or other side in the conflict. There are no innocents, just as there has been no original sin in the Middle East conflict.

[Tribesman]

Sorry there Adrian , are you trying to say that the shelling starting in '64 was not directed at workers on the water scheme ?

Israel will not likely give it up, unless as part of an enduring overall settlement for the region. And rightly so.

Yep and part of that enduring settlement will be over the 3 long planned water schemes involving Egypt , Israel , Jordan , Lebanon ,Syria , Turkey + whatever the eventual Palestinian state calls itself .

If we want to help bring about fundamental change in that region, people like you and me had better think in terms of such an overall settlement instead of relying on false memories and myths about the original innocence of one or other side in the conflict. There are no innocents, just as there has been no original sin in the Middle East conflict.

Hey hey , I always think of overall settlements involving all parties .
The reason why I write so often specifically about Israel is purely because of the number of posters who take the Israel can do no wrong approach .
If people were to take the Syria or Egypt can do no wrong approach they would get the same treatment , but that doesn't seem to happen does it .

Anyhow , slightly off topic Adrian , but any thoughts on the religeous ruling today about killing the IDF general because he is a traitor ?

[Adrian II]

Sorry there Adrian, are you trying to say that the shelling starting in '64 was not directed at workers on the water scheme?

I objected to the suggested sequence, that is all. The Syrian shelling started right in 1948 and never really stopped. The reason was that the Syrians tried to stimy the quick development of the Hula Valley on the Israeli side of the border. Instead of developing their own country, they spent millions to turn the Golan into an artillery platform. The 1964 Israeli attack was an answer to the Syrian attempt to divert the local headwaters for the same purpose: to block Israeli agricultural development.

And yes, you are right that the regional waterways and waterbasins will either be part of an overall settlement of the cause of the next war.

[Grey_Fox]

Sorry there Adrian , are you trying to say that the shelling starting in '64 was not directed at workers on the water scheme ?

The 'water scheme' was designed to stop the Israelis setting up irrigation on their side of the demilitarised zone by diverting the river, nothing more. Adrian is correct. The Syrians would fire at farmers, their homes and farms on a daily basis. There were violations, and sometimes the Israelis would provoke the Syrians into shooting by having the farmers go out into the demilitarised zone, but the Syrians are not the puppy-kissing blameless virgins you try to make them out to be.

Check out "Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East" by Jeremy Bowen, it's pretty good.

[Tribesman]

Concerening my thoughts on the problems in the middle east

the Syrians are not the puppy-kissing blameless virgins you try to make them out to be.

Where do you get that from Fox ?
Have I ever said that any of the many parties involved in the conflicts are blameless ?

However .....

The 'water scheme' was designed to stop the Israelis setting up irrigation on their side of the demilitarised zone by diverting the river, nothing more.

what did Moshe Dayan say were the primary reasons for setting up the agricultural projects? You do sort of touch on it here ......sometimes the Israelis would provoke the Syrians into shooting by having the farmers go out into the demilitarised zone...... is it in the book you recomend ? Furthermore under the armistice agreement what was the actual status of the workings of the clause over cultivation in the zone ?

[Grey_Fox]

what did Moshe Dayan say were the primary reasons for setting up the agricultural projects? You do sort of touch on it here ......sometimes the Israelis would provoke the Syrians into shooting by having the farmers go out into the demilitarised zone...... is it in the book you recomend?

Yup, it's in the book.

Of course the Syrians would shoot at the Israelis any time they felt like it, when the Israelis wanted to do some damage to the Syrians they would create those 'incidents' I mentioned. Here's an excerpt from the book I mentioned:

...They (Israeli soldiers) were there because of water. Since 1959 Israel had been building it's national water carrier, a system that sent water from the Sea of Galilee ub the north through pipes and canals to irrigate the Negev desert in the south. In 1964 it was ready. The Arabs' belated response was to sabotage it by diverting two of the three sources of the river Jordan that fed the Sea of Galilee. The men from 'S' Brigade of Israel's Armoured Corps were going to attack the Syrian earth moving machines and the tanks protecting them.

It then gives a small account of the two resulting fights. The Syrian response was to shell Israeli farming settlements and the Israelis then bombed Syrian positions.

Furthermore under the armistice agreement what was the actual status of the workings of the clause over cultivation in the zone ?

I believe it was not meant to be done (farming that is) but don't quote me on it.

Thing is, the Syrians loved to provoke the Israelis as much as the Israelis did to them. How else would the Israelis would only need to send a single tractor into the area before the Syrians would start shooting?

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Vladimir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi
are you serious? i guess your an American Jew i take it....

And I guess you must be rather presumptuous. If you want to start a thread on the American political process or why Jews are liars, go ahead. I don't see how your post is relevant to this discussion.

the point was, that most of the settlers in disputed parts of Israel are American Jews, from the language you used it seemed a little over zealous, from which i took it as your a strong supporter of the settlements and of Israel taking and hold parts as a result of the 67 war. This would mean that regardless of what was on offer, you would be of the pretty much fixed position that Israel's needs and rights trump all others, against all reason too boot. ( i wasn't trying to offend you or others for the matter, i was trying to work out if thats where you came to that position)

On to the topic, the more the talking is done the more can be done, and with that made the cycle of teaching children to mistrust and hate each other can be broken so that fair and equal settlements can be reached by the next generations. Each generation of Palestinians are growning more and more tired of war, death and hardship, and i believe are becoming increasingly more open to a peaceful long lasting solution. surely the middle east has paid enough blood for sane minds to prevail.

Syria has been making a lot of gestures lately that it is starting to see a opportunity to to move to better more worthwhile relations with some of its more hostile neighbors. with the help it has been offering in Iraq now this. It seems it is trying to join the fold.

Is it trying to move away from Iran or towards better relations with the US??

[Hosakawa Tito]

If we want to help bring about fundamental change in that region, people like you and me had better think in terms of such an overall settlement instead of relying on false memories and myths about the original innocence of one or other side in the conflict. There are no innocents, just as there has been no original sin in the Middle East conflict.

A wise sentiment that we all should consider.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-P-6et5SuBQ

Hehe