Syria: No peace talks without Israeli promise to return Golan

k: "It was Israel that shot rockets into the Golan?" Prior to June 1967? Yes, indeed, Israel had been using artillery and airstrikes against targets in the Golan for years prior to the Six Day War. Look up the history of Syrian attempts to divert water from the Upper Jordan in 1966, and how Israel "put a stop to it". Israel didn't use stern words, Ki`emli. Israel used air strikes. k: "And it was Israel that massed troops on the border with Sinai " And all of those massed troops were in foxholes when the IDF armoured brigades drove over the top of them in their race to the Suez. What does that tell you about why those troops were there, Ki'emli, because - try as you might - you can't "invade" anyone from a foxhole. k: "and then it was Israel that invaded Israel from Jordan?" OK, now you have really flown off to cloud coo-coo-land..... k: "Hasbara leads to truth" Since when, sunshine?

E: "Butaka: SYria STARTED shooting, both on June 5, 67" Eve, Syria had an iron-clad mutual-defense treaty with Egypt, and that treaty clearly said that an attack on one was an attack on both. So when Israel attacked Egypt it did so knowing full well that it was starting a war with both Egypt and Syria. The legal phrase is "casus foederis", and it means than Syria no more "started" its war against Israel in 1967 than Britain and France "started" their war against Germany in 1939 in response to Germany's attack on Poland. NATO works in exactly the same manner, and so NOBODY can attack (for example) Britain and then complain when the other member states of NATO join the conflict. Because that's how "self-defense treaties" work, Eve.

Y: "Who closed off the Straits of Tiran in May 1967 to Israeli shipiping," How is that "the start of a war"? Y: "Who marched his troops into Sinai in May 1967?" That's "egyptian soil", Yonatan. Marching your own troops onto your own soil is not "the start of a war". Y: "Who expelled the UNEP peacekeeping force from Gaza in May 1967?" How is that "the start of a war"? Y: "Who signed a pact with Jordan in May 1967 to attack Israel?" What, the "self-defence pact"? Y: "Who started firing artillery on West Jerusalem on June 5, 1967 in spite of Israeli pleas to refrain from doing so?" Do you even know what a "self-defence pact" **IS**???? Y: "Who had been firing from the Golan Heights on Israeli settlements below in the Jordan River River Valley for many months before June 1867 and stepped up its firing on June 5, 1967?" Err, the IDF was ALSO very busy firing into the Golan and attacking water diversion projects in the months prior to June 1967.

OC: "Oh really! C`mon John, how do you define "started the war"?" In exactly the same way that the United States of America defined the start of the Pacific War. As in: it started the moment that YOUR warplanes began dropping their bombs on OUR military bases. In the case of the Pacific War it was when the Japanese planes launched their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. In the case of the Six Day War it was when the IDF Mirages launched their surprise attack on the Egyptian airfields. Both cases were preceded by threats, by embargoes and by manouvring for position. Sure, no question. But the WAR starts when the BOMBS start dropping.

in point of law you are correct. casus belli...yet otherwise you are repeating long identified falsehoods. Now which former Israeli PM said this? "In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Then reference your Syrian argument: Which Israeli General said this, referencing the Syrian front 1967 immediately prior to the war? "We would send a tractor to plow some [disputed] area ...and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn?t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and thats how it was... I made a mistake in allowing the conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time" If you dont know. Read a history book. Just make sure its not a hasbara book eh?

in point of law you are correct. casus belli...yet otherwise you are repeating long identified falsehoods. Now which former Israeli PM said this? "In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Then reference your Syrian argument: Which Israeli General said this, referencing the Syrian front 1967 immediately prior to the war? "We would send a tractor to plow some [disputed] area ...and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn?t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and thats how it was... I made a mistake in allowing the conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time" If you dont know. Read a history book. Just make sure its not a hasbara book eh?

for the 2nd time, together with Sa'adat of Egypt. This is why Syria so badly wanted to develop their own Pu nukes. As things stand now, her capital Damascus is a sitting duck for the IDF.

before the Roman conquest. See his Jerusalem minted coins found on the Golan.

I hope many outsiders are reading this. This point is the main root of the problem. "LAND THEFT" : is it acceptable or not.

If Syria wanted Peace, they would have no Need for Golan. All it ever was for them, was a Missile Range.

Israel will not sit at the negotiating table unless Syria agrees beforehand to surrender the Golan and to return Damascus to boot ( we used to rule over it for a while mere 2,700 years ago). Syria was given the Golan by a third party in 1946 and ruled over it for 21 years. Israel got it as a result of a defensive war in 1967 and possessed it for the past 42 years. Who has a stronger claim? Thus, if Mr. Assad wants it, he should come and get it. His daddy tried already.....

After being militarily attacked by Syria in 48, 67 and 73, this is "stolen land"? And should Thessaloniki and all of Armenia be returned to Turkey as Stolen Land?

Wrong Wayne, Sadat came to Israel in 1977 well before any peace deal had been agreed on. His coming to Israel was to show the Israeli people and leaders he was sincere in peace. Your comments are false. If Assad had any common sense he would be more proactive and seek meetings with high level Israel officials. Now thats if he is sincere about peace. All he cares about is getting the Golan not a sincere peace. We have this with Mubarek Egypt a cold peace. Who needs it with Syria and unlike you Wayne I have been many many time to Nothern Israel including the GOlan and its stragetic location outways any worthless cold peace with Syria.

With this ALL OR NOTHING attitude no negotiations were ever started.

and rejected by Assad Sr.

and on May 15, 1948. Very simple, documented facts.

I think it's funny when some say that it doesn't make to say there are no preconditions when Syria is demanding all of the Golan Heights. The Israelis who say that ignore that Assad is copying Netanyahu, i.e., the Israeli game. I mean Netanyahu told the Palestinians Israel is is prepared to negotiate without preconditions but that Palestinians have to do certain things. Anyway, if Israel wants peace, it could counter offer that it would withdraw from the Golan Heights if Israel accepts a demilitarized Golan, the settlers to stay within Syria and secure, and a part of the Golan would be returned at a later promised date, and the two would have diplomatic relations, and Syria would stop providing weapons to Hezbollah and promise to cease any hostile actions against Israel. Without an offer for all of the Golan in some shape or form, the Syrians would feel stupid. They have no desire to enter negotiations where they would look stupid and accept less than all of the Golan.

Syria wants to conquer Lebanon, that's why it needs the Golan. I hope the Israelis will hold on to the Golan.

When the ARABS trade land for peace, then there will be PEACE.

... as long as Assad does not do something stupid.

do not start war in future otherwise you risk losing land , very simple Syria started a war with Israel and lost the Golan heights. TOUGH

All Israel gets is "talks"? No security for giving them the high ground overlooking Israel the monitoring stations that gives Israel early warning,in case Arab armies decide to attack Israel on Yom Kippur again?

All Israel gets is "talks"? No security for giving them the high ground overlooking Israel the monitoring stations that gives Israel early warning,in case Arab armies decide to attack Israel on Yom Kippur again?

When someone put his demand for start "negociatiation", it IS the negociation. What Israel has to do now is to put ITS own huge demand to start "negociation". When the "negociation" starts, everything is solved and it is time for sign.

Is there anything else on the menu that you want from Israel for signing a peace treaty? First of all You lost your ownership of the Golan when you played war and lost. We've beaten you before. And we will do it again. around..Please consider your future steps very carefully for you may well lose more that the Golan next time around.

and has never signed a peace treaty . the un did not create israel ! it was created by the league of nations 1920 !!

It is not for the syrian government to give preconditions to peace, it is for Israel, the one that was always aggressed by the syrian regime! The syrian government believes that, because of their strong bonds to iran, hizbollah, hamas and Turkey, they have stronger position and more privileges to set preconditions and hide the reality that they are the aggressors! None of the governments and terrorist organizations mentioned above are in fact "true friends" of the syrian government, the only thing they all share in common and is uniting them is: the hatred of Israel.

HELLO, The WORLD is DIFFERENT, NOW! Yonatan, all that history that you lived through, is just history and unlikely to happen again with satillite surveilance. Again, Syria has no desire to repeat that time period..they are sincerely trying to negotiate peace and Golan's return for more a decade. Syria signed the Arab League Proposal for Peace and meet with livni and Olmert in Annapolis. How can you write that Syria is "hellbent upon Israel's demize?" Also, international law and UN charter indicates that the land needs to go back to original owners.

Israel is the criminal entity in this conflict. Land theft should not be rewarded by allowing the thief to hold onto one sq centimeter of stolen land.

Honoring past agreements is not the same as previous negotiations. Since no deal has ever been agreed to between Israel and Syria then no obligation exists.

Assad wants peace talks but will only meet in Turkey, no need to legitimize the Jewish state by holding talks in Syria or Israel. Assad believes the Americans are the weak point in the process, so much for Syria accepting responsibility. Syria launched a war, and lost. How do you say "Good-bye Golan" in Arabic? Asking Israel to return the Golan is like asking the US to return Texas to Mexico. It's like asking Poland to return East Prussia and Silesia to Germany. How do you say "the Golan belongs to Israel" in Arabic? Anyone who doubts this wisdom needs to read a history book on the Golan and how it was used against Israel by their peaceful Muslim neighbors.

Guess I can start building those extra rooms for my Grandchildren and Great Grandchildren as it looks like we are going to be here forever. Hmm maybe its worth buying that new tractor also.

I love it when the facts are spoken. Keep up the good work!

Territories acquired by conquests are ILLEGAL. therefore should be returned to their RIGHTFUL OWNER, The UN, that created Israel.

when no PM stays for long in their jobs. If Israel asking HAMAS to honour passed AGREEMENTS then Netanyahu should do the same, starting where the LAST GOVERMENTS left off.

In fact the war of 67 (which the arabs surrendered after 6 days) was started in 1956 when egypt then closed the Straits of Tiran. The yanks as usual lied saying that they would not allow the african state to close the strait again. egypt again closed the strait (closing an international waterway is regonized as 'an act of war') to Israel. Allowing Israel to defend herself as comment by 24.

Since when is it that a victor in a war started by Syria has ever returned territory it won in battle. Israel is entitled to secure borders, and unless Syria accepts a UN patrolled buffer zone consisting of the Golan Heights, taking it out of the hands of both Israel and Syria, then there is no reason to talk peace. The loser in the war is in no position to make pre-conditions for peace. Clearly the Syrians are not interested in peace. Fine, it's their problem, not ours.

Syria simply doesn't believe Netanyahu is credible or serious when he claims to want peace. He's proved himself already to the Palestinians and US as unwilling to even discuss independence of sovereignty for Palestinians. Netanyahu wants the appearance of a process but no result. His reputation precedes him. The Americans and Palestinians don't believe him either.

there never was a land ,its all fake papers it was only Gods signiture, I love to see that.then I will believe .

PEDRO. WE CAN DEAL WITH SYRIA EASILY.

It was Israel that shot rockets into the Golan? And it was Israel that massed troops on the border with Sinai and then it was Israel that invaded Israel from Jordan? Hasbara leads to truth. How inconvenient for you.

Syria attacked right after Israel declared independence and Israel defeated them. Then they entered the Six Day War after Israel warned them not to. They used the Golan to shoot rockets into the Galilee.

WE MUST NEVER GIVE BACK THE GOLAN, IF WE DO WE WILL HAVE THE IRANIANS SITTING ON OUR DOOR STEP.

Syria. Silly Syria ! First they start the war ! Then they lose the war ! Then they go crying & cringing to the world: Tell the Israelis to Give me ! Give me! what I lost ! Oh ! How sad !

Tell me, Jhhn: Who closed off the Straits of Tiran in May 1967 to Israeli shipiping, thus choking off the Israeli port city of Eilat? Not Israel. Who marched his troops into Sinai in May 1967? Who expelled the UNEP peacekeeping force from Gaza in May 1967? Not Israel. Who signed a pact with Jordan in May 1967 to attack Israel? Not Israel. Who started firing artillery on West Jerusalem on June 5, 1967 in spite of Israeli pleas to refrain from doing so? Not Israel. Who had been firing from the Golan Heights on Israeli settlements below in the Jordan River River Valley for many months before June 1867 and stepped up its firing on June 5, 1967? Not Israel. And you have the nerve, the temerity and the ignorance to claim that Israel started the war? After all the belligerent acts listed above, do you think it matters who fired the first shot? If you do, you're either awf I was here and witnessed it all. Where were you? And if you don't believe me, read a few history books

S. 7 of the U.N. Charter aims at preventing aggressive states from acquiring and keeping land through war. It is not directed at a State that defended itself in a war of aggression started by its enemy, Syria, who happened to be able to take the war into enemy territory. S. 7 of the Charter doesn't speak to the issue of what terms and conditions are appropriate for Israeli withdrawel. That is the issue. When you start a war and lose, you take the risk that the enemy will want meaningful guarantees of peace, something the Syrians are not prepared to talk about until they have all the bargaining power. This is about bargaining power. Israelies should double talk, however. They should, yes we will withdraw, if you guarantee the following: (a), (b), (c) ... In short this is negotiating in public ....

Oh really! C'mon John, how do you define "started the war"? While formulating your answer, you might want to consult the historical record of what happened during the weeks that preceded June 5, 1967.

was never part of syria at anytime!!! so eye dr use your vision and get the facts right !!

OK. No peace talks then. Ankara, Tehran and Damascus are coorinating what they spew. According to Assad: France must subordinate to Turkey too. Not good timing for saying much on Israel's side. Assad wants the cake and eat it at the same time. Terror and Golan, Iran and the West. Let him rott.

When you want peace you agree your going to first sit down and talk peace the reward is something that comes out of a peace treaty and what that reward if gets negotiated. Whats the point of even bothering to talk if we are giving up the bargining chips before we even say a word. This is how you run a protection racket, you pay me and I leave you alone but the minute the payments stops you will regret it. The only reason the Assad is telling Obama to draw up a plan is because he knows Obama is champion of the arabs and has no interest in Israels well being so he will deliver Assad anything he demands. You don't do deals with a man like that Sadat & King Hussain both wanted peace for the sake of peace & neither supported terror. Assad is openly proud of the fact he supports terror and he isn't interested in real peace making he wants to bully Israel into giving him the Golan and keep acting as a bully Syria is not currently a threat to Israel give Assad the Golan the risks increase

...with Iran and Hezbollah and withdraw forces X miles from the border. Oh, what's that? You don't like pre-conditions?

playground analysis

"Israel took the Golan Heights in -67, this is the sole reason for the the state of war with Syria and the essence of the conflict." Wrong! This is not the sole reason for the conflict! Before Israel took the Heights Syria was regularly shooting down on the Galilee. There's also the belligerence of Syria's backing of Hezbollah and Hamas. In essence Syria would like to get the Golan and continue her state of war with Israel. I agree with Pedro's earlier post that Assad cannot be trusted. Fundamentally Syria is hostile toward Israel irrespective of whether she holds the Golan or not. Syria should show Israel what peace means before setting preconditions.

Jewish property does not equal Israeli sovereignty.

Assad wants preconditions, Assad wants Turkey, Assad wants to continue to arm hezbollah and hamas. Assad wants good US relations, Assad wants his rights (what ever that is). Assad wants nukes. Better Israel keep the platueu.

Semantics are semantics when you talk about returnign the Golan to a terrorist nation hellbent upon Israel's demize. For readers who have not been to northern Israel, the long slope called the Golan Heights could not be a better military position for aiming down upon the northern most parts of Israel. In fact, all along the highways and roads are bunkers left behind by the Syrians. My friends grew up being shot at by the Syrians as they walked along as children, being picked off! Opposite the Golan "slope" are the towns and farm fields of Israel. Literally if this land was given back, the Syrians would move artillery right up against Israel--like a target range! And, they most likely would allow Hesballah to occupy this area. Besides the fact that Syrian lost this in the war, they have shown they cannot be trusted. Strategically, it would be absolute insanity to allow them this close.

Under Section 7 of the UN Charter, taking real estate in war is not allowed. If Israel wants to maintain its UN status then it follow the rules under section 7. Give back land. Syria wants to join the "West" because the sanctions have worked agaisnt Syria and Syria will do what's necessary to stop Hamas and Hezbelloah. This is an obvious win-win, but the Likud people want to fight the way it was 40 years ago. There will not be military guns moved onto the heights again. The threat is no longer there.

Netanyahu plan seems to be half the land for a full peace in both Golan and W. Bank with E. Jerusalem off the table. This is to some degree the current status quo with Israel losing little but gaining hopefully a full peace. The Muslim countries are slowly gaining military power and are about 10 to 15yrs away from becoming a major threat to Israel and if you add in there large numbers of troops then Israel could lose along drawn out war. The Muslims only need a counter defense to Israel air power and it nukes then fight a war of attrition like the Iraq/Iran war. Once the Russia S-300/400 defense system is delivered that will counter Israel air power to a large degree and Iran is about 7yrs away from becoming a nuclear power.

The discussion here misses the point. Assad says no summit without an agreement. He announced Syria's bottom line price. He indicated that talks among expert teams should restart (with Turkish mediation) That is a concession in itself, as Syria broke off the talks the last time. Its not unusual to only bring in heads of government at the end. Even Sadat didn't just set up a meeting before expert delegations worked on details -- and Sadat sought the talks, publicly, on the CBS Evening News!

Before Israel took the Golan, Syria used to have snipers sitting on the Golan firing on innocent farmers below...FACT! Also if Israel would give back the Golan Syria would put artillery on the Golan to fire on Israel...FACT!!! So we would have Hezbollah in the north along with Syria firing on Israel with Hamas in the south covering what the north don't hit...FACT!!! Plus Syria is a puppet of Iran, and we all know what Iran wants to do to Israel...wipe it off the map...FACT!

Mr. Assad needs to realize something. His nation lost this land in a war they initiated with Egypt. They are the losers! They are in no position to give Israel dictums or ultimatums. Negotiations should not have preconditions as he is demanding. Its in both Israel and Syria' s interest to come to a peace settlement however negotiations must start with no preconditions. Also if Assad is serious about peace and a meeting with Bibi would help things. He should take a pace out of Sadat's handbook.

The Golan is Israel and will never be given to Syria. Assad knows very well, that History can not be reversed. Syria foolishly started The 1967 war by invading Israel with over 2000 tanks, Israel won and Syria lost the Golan forever.Assad should be glad that he could keep Damascus.Even though he tried again in 1973 and lost again. Arabs should recognize that they lost even if that is impossible according to Islam.

This guy's father started a war with Israel and lost the Golan heights. What right has he got ask the Israelis to give it back.

Assad can't be trusted. He is one of the most dangerous Israel enemy and his behavior is 100% cynical.

To insure Israel's National Security Interests, Israel does NOT need any 'peace' crap from Syria.

We should demand that he first implement the Damascus Declaration ( http://www.nidaasyria.org/en/news/damascus-declaration-leaders-sentenced ). No point doing deals with a leader that doesn't have a legitimate rule over his people. Until then I think I'll keep enjoying a fine Golan wine every weekend.

Just look at the Mandate maps, Dov Koret. We are speaking MODERN boundaries and law here, not some ancient biblical claims. Both sides need to moderate their demands and seek a half-way house solution. Israel cannot hold on to land seized by conquest and settle it, as it is doing. Both are forbidden by international law and are only a recipe for a 1,000 year war. Syria cannot use the heights to fire artillery into Israel or to divert the headwaters to Syrian use. That is the justification for it being occupied. The compromise is something like: - The land is returned to Syria - It is designated as a UN-supervised Demilitarised Zone, where neither side can station or move armed forces - Israel leases the western slopes from Syria for 99 or 199 years That makes the military and water threats disappear, meets international law, saves Syrian face, achieves peace and cuts off Syrian support for Hamas and Hizbullah. Not so difficult really.

they went to war and started it, not Israel. Until Israel has confidence that Syria really wants peace this is an unjust demand. evidence of Syrian conections with terrorism is strong- Hamas and others headquarter themselves in Syria. Syria turns a "blind" nose at weapons smuggling to Hezbo and others on their soil. So who can trust them. This precondition is unacceptable but maybe that is the plan, say no preconditions , want peace etc etc, then give the biggest condition to make it unworkable, whiile doing business as usual with the terror gang. Arabic double talk it is. No one is fooled.

Golan W were taken in 67 after Agression of Syria and and other Arab countries .Like Russians took a lot of land from Germany and Japan after WWII- and nobody forces Russia to return, so do not start war in future otherwise you are risking to loose the land , -it is very simple

There is certainely a hidden consensus between Arab regimes, the West and Israel. Arab regimes were never serious in wanting to liberate Palestine after Israel was established in 1948. Arab armies lost to israel because they were never ready. In fact, regular battles between a modern army and 3/4th class Arab armies can only be one sided. even without the massive supports from world powers, the US in particular. The Golan and all Arab lands would have been liberated easily by popular armed movements. Hamsa, if left alone, with only support from arab masses, could liberate Palestine and imposed an equitable solution. Hezbullah, was able to undo the SLA and Israel in few skirmatches. Druze of Syria could easily get back the Golan and beyond if left alone. Arab regimes are the best security Israel and the US have.

It's amazing the foolishness of so many writers. The GOLAN was never syrian to begin with. syria has, never had any legal claim to the GOLAN. Futher more The Rothschilds repurchased the GOLAN from the turkish ottoman government....DK

Israel should state a few of its own.

Assad is right. There is no point in talks unless Israel is prepared to give up the Golan...all of it. Assad will accept nothing less. He has said so many times and there is no reason to doubt him. If Israel is prepared to give up the Golan then there is much to discuss...namely, the price Syria will have to pay to get the Golan back (security arrangements, water issues, etc.). But, if Israel is determined to hold on to the Golan under any circumstances then there is nothing to discuss. Natenyahu needs to make clear Israel's position in this matter.

Assad's statement: "... if you want peace then the result will be peace,..." Sounds good. Therefore: -Syria must divorce totally from Iran's aggressive intentions. - same with Hezbollah. - Syria should help to make peace with the Palestinians, including Hamas and if successful, take the Golan. If not, not.

One precondition that can not be denied is that in order to solve a conflict you'll have to solve the darned conflict. Israel took the Golan Heights in -67, this is the sole reason for the the state of war with Syria and the essence of the conflict. If Israel decides to keep Golan she has also decided upon perpetual war. There is no more to say upon this subject matter. It is exactly that very simple.

Syria has lost and lost miserably three wars of direct military aggression aimed at destroying Israel. They have lost land, troops, their air forces , countless Russian tanks. Need I go on? They just got themselves bombed not long ago doing what Iran is doing now. They are hardly the victors and hardly in any position to bargain. Assad has lead a charmed life up until now. Now he needs to ask himself : Do I feel like a lucky punk? Bibi also needs to ask himself if he feels lucky with his electorate if he commits political suicide in ceding the Golan to Syria. It would be awful Olmert of him to do so! It should be cause for civil war in Israel.

if he is not getting Golan Heights why shall he negoviate it a true peace go through these counties arround you will be a fair neighboord and muslim are good and up to it other then that is political game you are good at but poor to manage so go for peace a global one

I do hope that Bibi conveys to Assad exactly where he can stuff this demand.

We have Land in Syria, Bought by the baron Edmond James de Rothschild, Will we get it back too, for Peace? Peace for Peace If not, No Peace, I for sure, can live with it, Believe me, I will survive without eating Humus in Damascus!

We have Land in Syria, Bought by the baron Edmond James de Rothschild, Will we get it back too, for Peace? Peace for Peace If not, No Peace, I for sure, can live with it, Believe me, I will survive without eating Humus in Damascus!

Nobody seems to believe Netanyahu is sincere when he says he wants an agreement. The Palestinians won't come to the table without evidence Netanyahu is serious. Now it seems Syria doesn't believe him either. He doesn't seem inclined to offer evidence of sincerity. Both were willing to give Kadima a try and were disappointed. But neither seems to think Netanyahu or the current government is doing more than shining them on. Could it be that Netanyahu's reputation precedes him? The US has tried to convince the Palestinians and Syrians to talk. But they've had more success with Iran coming to the table.

Israel all but agreed to return the Golan for peace. It wasn't signed, but that was the deal. Now Israel wants to sell the same car for twice the price. ...and she wonders why it's no sale. Actually, of course, Israel isn't interested in a deal at all. She just wants to get somebody into 'talks' so it'll look like she's trying to make peace. Not that she will. No wonder no one's buying. The game has gotten old.