Lebanon bid to mark Syria borders puts fate of Shaba Farms on table

like the kirkuk an musul kept by Brits because its strategically imp while it was right of R of Turkey. Golan heights re strategically imp to isr and isr has the right to annex it cuz syria lost their offensive against israel!

I have to agree with CJ even if he s not completely right. Hatay was annexed legally in 39 as a result of a referandum in hatay which concluded nearly 90% wanting to stay at Turkey. Its no syrian land cuz At the end of the WW1 it was still an ottoman land like kerkuk and Musul in Iraq. after the cease fire Brits invaded Kirkuk and Musul and Diyarbakır while FR invaded hatay Adana Antep Urfa. at the end of the war of independence with the agreements with allied they promised to give turkey back the land they had after the cease fire. they gave back except for Hatay and Musul kirkuk and promised to hold a referandum.they said thats because of the high population of arabs inside.French kept promise while Brits as usual screw turkey up! and turkey gave up its right in the land. at that time there was no syri and no Iraq(when the cease fire was signed). syria considers it in its territory. but it has never been theirs. Golan hights re very different.i think that isr has the right to keepi

syria has just signed a new defence pact with the terror state of iran. syria is still supporting all terror groups in the region, including hezbollah, hamas. syria is the chief sponsor of the ideology of "resistance." as long as syria continues to support terror and thereby threaten the most vital security of israel, syria cannot claim that it wants peace.

Hatay was "legally annexed" by Turkey, you say. Honestly CJ, you are utterly clueless. In fact, there is a deep rooted disagreement between Turkey and Syria over the Hatay Province. Syrians hold the view that this land was illegally ceded to Turkey by France, the mandatory occupying power of Syria in the late 1930s. Syria still considers it an integral part of its own territory. Syrians call this land Liwa' aliskenderun (Arabic: لواء الاسكندرون) rather than the Turkish name of Hatay. The annexation is based on a referendum which was organized in 1939 by the French-backed Republic of Hatay, the authenticity of which is hotly disuputed between Turkey and Syria. The Syrians say it was phoney and that the French colonialists had no right to trade away Syrian land. Official Syrian maps still show Hatay as a part of Syria. "The Alexandretta Dispute" is a well known unresolved issue in international law. Your dogmatic assertion that the annexation was "legal" is a joke.

"In the Egypt-Israel deal, unlike the Golan, the Sinai buffer provides sufficient strategic depth for Israel`s defense" It's a buffer by agreement, not a territorial claim. Read the Peace agreement. The Golan is occupied.

Why negotiate for something we have NOW - a cold peace. Just like Egypt and Jordan - we gave them what they LOST and what did we get - an icy peace. In other words, we got nothing, which we already have with Syria. Let an Arab country, for once, take responsibility for their actions. They started a war and lost. Live with it.

...and neither does Syria. Not everyone is as stupid as Turkey and the EU

In 2000 Barak offered Assad Senior the Syrian Golan. Assad demanded to also get back areas Syria occupied from Israel, accross the British Mandate border, all the way to the east shore of Lake Galilee. Lake Galilee was ENTIRELY inside British Mandate of Palestine borders. That caused the failure of the Clinton sponsored Peace initiative in April 2000. Thus the statement "Peace talks between Israel and Syria faltered in 2000 over Damascus's demand for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 war and later annexed." is misleading.

israel's claims of wanting peace and security are growing less convincing on an almost daily basis anymore.

the idf has conceded that. what you contend is a favorite logic for pro-israeli right wingers who prefer to maintain its illegal occupation of that territory, in order to convince people who are out of touch with modern war technologies that it's important to israeli security.

neighbors. Syria is asking for negotiations, and Israel makes up excuses not to. The arrogance of the present military superiority. Some readers keep going back to 1967 when Syria was offered the Golan for peace. It is a different world today. The roles now have been reversed. Shame on you for not negotiating peace when it is only a territorial dispute!

then claim to be a victim you can"prove" anything you like. When Pals stop firing from amongst their civillians knowing it attracts RETURN fire then they and their aplogists can cry civillian casualties.How many warnings to desist did they need?For how many years? Who is the occupier? When the war is over the occupation is negotiated not the other way around.Being a conduit for weapons fired at Israeli civillians is not a peace move and an Islamist who calls Mosques a military symbol is not a peace negotiator.

When Barak offered Golan in 2000, under Clinton peace efforts, Assad Senior also wanted back E. shore of Lake Galilee which was taken from Israel in Syria's agressive 48 war. That's how negotiations faultered.

And it was occupying Israeli territories 48-67. That is what is relevant

The downside of occupation is that the occupier loses all sympathy with the world. Assad belabors the obvious when he says that Israel doesn't aim to achieve peace. The entire world knows this and that is why they have not recognized Israels annexation of the Golan. In a similar fashion, the entire world refuses to place their embassys in Jerusalem. Israel has long since reached a point of diminishing returns as they continue to attempt to play the victim while victimizing innocents.

Syria's demand for the return of the Golan is not extortion. But its support of Hezbollah, Hamas, is simply part of the extortion that Avi refers to. Moreover, the Golan was the launching pad for attacks for the first two decades of Israel's existence. So, why should Syria simply get it back a pre-condition to negotiations? Where is the deterrence? What will stop states from attacking another state if there is nothing to lose except some lower cast soldiers that the state cares nothing about? In any event, Avi's general point is correct. I'm not suggeting that all Arabs are violent but there are no more violent people on earth.

"Israel does not want peace, because it wants negotiations without pre-conditions?" This does not make sense, even for a twisted brain like Assad's. The real issue is that he lacks testicles and has become a puppet regime of Tehran. All negotiations should be carried out without preconditions.

You need to bone up on History. each war has been started by the Arabs with the exception of 73 which was pre emptive. Syria lost the golan because they were using it to fire artillery into Israel. Israel took the golan and annexed it. Assad says he is wanting peace witjh no pre conditions. Israel says they want peace with no pre conditions. Assad says ISrael does not want peace because of their no precondition. Assad is smoking something, or he is going senile real quick. either way Israel owns teh golan. Syria want is back , Assad needs to make nice rather than try to Bully his way about like his Iranian badboy brother Ahmedinanutjob

... there has been no military incursions between Syria and the Golan. This would seem to show that the present situation is good for peace and stability, which is in the interests of both Israel and Syria. Why tamper with a good thing?

"The last time there was an attack between Israel and the Arabs was Cast Lead ..." [One] Ummm, Since Cast Lead, the Arabs in Gaza have fired 89 missiles or mortars (some counts have it at 95) into Israel. Apparently, you are defining "attack" as something only Israel does.

Israel never opt for peace, if they did the world will be in better position today. thanks to zionist un professional attitude towards the peace in the middle east.

The Golan is NOTHING: Syria lost a war, Israel annexed it, period. No occupation necesarry: we now OWN IT. Thats the price you pay for repeatedly attacking a stronger country, sooner or later you're going to lose everything. And the Occupiers in Israel are the arabs. Before the state of Israel was RE-FORMED...YES, RE-FORMED with the help of the world community, there were hardly any arabs and they DID NOTHING FOR THEMSELVES OR THE LAND BESIDES SQUAT ON IT. The Israelis BUILT the country into a beautiful nation while the arabs were given Syria & Jordan along with billions in aid to build their countries, which they've done to some extent (Jordan has done nicely). There WERE NO ARABS on the land during Israels first two Temple periods and BEFORE that. They stayed on the arabian peninsula, not in the Israeli territory. Persians and semitic peoples were in the area, but not what's there now. That came AFTER mohammed. Read history, CLEARLY and understand the fixed realities.

What an absurd notion: Israel doesn't want peace. Yeah, we love it when missles come flying in to our malls, pre-schools, homes and streets. We love having idiots blow up our restaurants and cafes. Why would we want peace when we can have the chaos, heartbreak and disruptions. Who are these idiots we have to deal with? What kind of brains do they possess? Rediculous.

there is no religion it is a human creation,there is no human more powerful than anyone it is a manipulation,there is no wisdom the ages destroy everything feelings,thoughts,ourselves and material things the only way to get freedom of mind is the truth up to the end.

The Eastern shore of Lake Galilee, which Syria took from Israel in 1948. They wanted to get all Israel took in defensive wars of 67 and 73, but wanted also to get what Syria took in an offensive war in 48. And their condition for negotiations is still to get back both the Syrian and the Israeli territorythey took, which they all call Golan. They want no peace, because their paymaster, Iran wants no peace whatsoever.

One can't make 5-way deals among 5 nations with pre-conditions; different Arab groups want different things and some will have to compromise as between one another and trade-off so everyone gets something, but no one gets everything they want. Arabs can't compromise; its not in the arabic language or their concept of diplomacy. They are chidlike in their demands; "I want what I want and we don't talk about what you want until I get absolute assurances and delivery of what I want." In other words, the other party does all the compromising. Israel needs to make things more painful for the Arabs by doing things like opening up the Golan to Israeli Arab resettlement; change the landscape of the three 'land passes' to permanently prevent military tank incursions such as is done in South Korea. The water resources need to be re-directed to Arab and Jewish viliages so that Israeli Arabs will object to returning the Golan to Syria. Cities need to be established and settlements expanded.

Turkey annexed Syria`s Hatay (Alexandretta) province in 1939, and this hasn`t affected Syria`s recent friendship with Turkey. Furthermore, Hatay is far less vital for Turkey`s security, while Syrian control of the Golan, Mt Hermon outsposts, and of the Galilee shoreline - despite all paper treaties - eliminates a major deterrent against Syria and could pose a major threat to Israel's North in the event of any renewed Syrian attack. In the Egypt-Israel deal, unlike the Golan, the Sinai buffer provides sufficient strategic depth for Israel`s defense.

Avi says: "The Arabs take no responsibility and use attacks or threaten to attack, in order to gain political leverage." How is Syria's demand that the Golan Heights be returned to Syria a sign of extortion? The last time there was an attack between Israel and the Arabs was Cast Lead which resulted in 1,400 Palestinian deaths, many of whom were civilians. Who is attacking whom here? I think you should replace the word "Arabs" with "Israel" in your comment and your statement will be much more truthful.

The Arabs take no responsibility and use attacks or threaten to attack, in order to gain political leverage. Terrorism.