Well, it looks like the meme of “low-hanging fruit” is still alive and well in Washington. This time it’s Obama, hoping to overcome his weakling image, heading into 2012.

And if a Lebanon crisis provides a pretext for war with Syria and Iran, then Obama can guarantee his re-election.

Also back, the classic 2005/2006 Asharq Al-awsat editor threatening/advising Syria

The Syrian Position

It is generally assumed that states, like individuals, benefit from their mistakes, and evaluate their experiences, especially when dealing with particular issues. However, this is not the case with the Syrian position, in terms of dealing with Lebanon, specifically the International Tribunal, and nominations for the next Prime Minister.

Regarding the parliamentary ruling [in 2004] to extend former Lebanese President Emile Lahoud’s term in office, Damascus insisted on him staying in power at any price, knowing that it would then be easier to bring in another pro-Syrian President afterwards. At the time, Damascus seemed as if it was playing in accordance with the rules of the game in Lebanon. Syria ignored all warnings and extended Lahoud’s term in office, in what was considered to be a landslide Syrian victory. However, what actually happened was to the contrary. The move was costly for Damascus and brought serious consequences, consequences which ultimately came to a head when the Syrian President announced, in front of his parliament, that his country had made mistakes in Lebanon. On that same day, he even announced his intention to withdraw the Syrian army from there!

Today, Lebanese affairs are following the same pattern, whereby Damascus is repeating its mistakes. In the event that Hezbollah’s project is victorious, in its attempt to seize the whole of Lebanon, Syria will be the loser. If the situation erupted – and this is both likely and expected – then the Syrians will pay the price and take the blame. If Hezbollah’s project is victorious, Tehran will be in control, and Iran will reap the fruits of this success, not Damascus. In such a case no one would go to Syria to negotiate, but instead everyone – yes everyone – would negotiate with Iran, instead of Syria. Why would there be a mediator so long as Iran is the dominant force? This is what Iran is explicitly seeking, and has told the West very clearly, amidst the backdrop of negotiations surrounding its nuclear program. Tehran’s search for a regional role must be recognized by the West, because it holds the keys to the troubled areas of the region, and this is no secret!

If the Iranian project was to fail in Lebanon, the situation may still erupt, and this [eruption] is expected as I said previously. Damascus would bear the consequences of this, faced by the Lebanese first and foremost. This would deepen the gap between the two neighbors, and it would subsequently be difficult to build any wall of confidence between the Syrians and the Arabs, and matters would worsen. Arabs will deal with Damascus in accordance with past experiences, rather than listening to its promises and the same can be said of the West. Furthermore, such a scenario would also create tensions within Syria itself, and this is an obvious matter which does not require further analysis.

Hezbollah’s control over Lebanon would inevitably fuel sectarian sentiments, and awaken the Sunni fundamentalist giant, which is currently stirring and has a genuine presence. Then it would not matter whether Hezbollah had light or heavy arms with which to intimidate its opponents, for it only takes one extremist to have the same impact as an artillery assault. This is something we have seen in sectarian conflicts throughout the Arab and Islamic world, and we have witnessed the extent of its damage.

Syria’s interpretation of the current situation is a dangerous one, because it is an old interpretation of a new case; or rather it has not developed over time. The current situation comes in light of changing global conditions, and dramatic changes in the rules of the game, while following up on the daily occurrences will stop many from asking the question; when will they learn?

Landis reiterates U.S. Middle East lingo in his analysis. Nowhere will he blame the U.S. and Europeans for Lebanon problems. It is always Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. In fact these are not the aggressors but the defenders and the winners. They are smart and calculating, while the West, especially U.S. and France made a huge strategic mistake rejecting Aoun, who begged for their support for years. They are making the same fatal mistakes in other places as well, which in the future they will be faced with similar theater, one that they are underhanded because of own shortsightedness and miscalculation.

Hariri and his masters need to get a grip and accept the loss in Lebanon. This will helps the West to prepare psychologically to withstand the suffering of a bigger loss coming soon in Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan. Prepare for bigger strategic loss over there. Hezbollah is not afraid of conflict, not even with Israel, they kicked America, France and Israel out of Lebanon when they where in their teens, kids. If Hariri tries again silly dog tricks with Moslem terrorists and Currency manipulation he will finds out when the heat is up, the unreliable backers ships out and he ends up living all his life in Arabia.

The STL is corrupt and a fraud. They spent years fabricating evidences with one intention, arm twisting President Assad to hands over the Golan to Israeli and pressuring Lebanese to domicile Palestinian in Lebanon. That was all it is for to the last breath. Just last week, when they leaked Assad and Khemenei names as suspects ( supposedly) accompanied by U.S. secret push for a quick deal on the Golan. It was a tool set up to help Israel. Otherwise, they would not have ignored the screaming of SAEED when he discovered the phone records right at the start, he got assassinated, still did not bother to look into his findings, because the interest was not the finding of truth, but the Golan and Palestinians settlement .

The article doesn’t explain the Lebanese parliamentary system, like that of Iran also, represents different blocks of the population, so therefore ‘Hizbollah’ should be understood as representing a section of Lebanese society, and that Hizbollah are part of the National framework of Security for the Nation-State of Lebanon, that work within the Lebanese military – which was set up on behalf of the Lebanese people. Lebanon has a right to defend itself like any other nation-state, from aggressive neighbours – therefore I would say personally that any commentary about the region, that is to be fair to the people who live there needs to explain this. Otherwise it’s comparable to some people in Afghanistan declaring the British 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery as terrorists in Afghanistan. At the same time, Hizbullah are not operating in the USA, or even in Israel, so therefore I would state, that it would be incorrect for any person from the USA to state that Hizbullah are a terrorist organisation since that would require Hizbullah to operate within US territory which from what I understand, is not correct. They are operating in defence of their own territories, and have a right to do so in international law. This is quite different. In relation to the Sea of Galilee which is a major water aquifer of the region, the Golan Heights is the main Syrian access point to this water source. It is also not mentioned that in the original Sykes-Picot agreement, When Syria was partitioned, by the French, British and Russians, the Golan was all that was left to Syria, as access to this important source of water for the whole of the Syrian territories via the Golan Heights.

It is also not mentioned that before the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan were one country, so therefore the entire Sea of Galilee, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan and all other territories would have belonged to Syria originally in the first place, long before the partition under the Balfour Declaration by the British to create a ‘Jewish Zionist State’ on the back of coastal settlements that were orginally in fact founded by Germans.

from paragraph below jumblatt pic, “The STL was America’s brainchild”.

and

what a diseased mind amer is.

a diseased idea from a diseased mind controlled by a diseased collective.

Commendations to Mr. Jumblatt for confirming his commitment Lebanon first and foremost. Best wishes are also extended to both Lebanon and Syria’s interests.

4 Syrian activists were sentenced to Prison by the Higher Security Court. One of them, Abbas Abbas, sentenced to 15 years! Abbas Abbas already served 17 years in prison during Hafez Al Assad’s regime for belonging to the outlawed Worker’s Party.

“What happened to the dialogue and the citizen’s rights and when will you loosen your grip?” Abbas asked the Judge. “You are not helping Syria by throwing me in prison.” he added.

Legitimate questions that maybe our Syrian foreign affairs Mujahideen in this forum can help us and tell us when will this come to an end?

http://aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8422EBA6-99EF-4D4E-B630-F5926AD4797D.htm?GoogleStatID=9

Shimon’s Letter to Vladimir, A Parody
by Steve Plaut

To: Mr. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation

From: Shimon Peres, hero of peace

Re: Those protests this week at the Moscow Airport by Activists and Militants

My heartfelt sympathies to you and the Russia people for the recent
Moscow airport unrest and protests against occupation that were held
this week. However, we must really speak about how to deal with these
forms of activism in Russia, perpetrated by these misunderstood
Chechen activists.
Mister Prime Minister, I have a great deal of experience in dealing
successfully with terrorism and violence, and this is why I wish to
come to your rescue. The first thing you must realize is that one can
only make peace with one’s enemies. With one’s friends, there is no
need to make peace. There is no military solution to the problems of
terrorism, and this is why you must seek a diplomatic solution. “No
Justice, No Peace?” as they say.
You must invite the leaders of this Chechen organization
responsible for the bloodshed in Moscow to meet with you in the
Kremlin and perhaps tour Petrograd palaces together. You must learn to
feel their pain and understand their needs. The solution is to create
two states for two peoples, one Slavic and one Islamic, inside Russia
itself with Moscow as the joint capital. You must bear in mind that
Russia was once conquered by the Tatars and that makes all of Russia
the homeland of Moslems.
You must meet all the demands of the militants who held the
airport protest in Moscow in full. You must offer them Internet web
services and five-star tourist hotels in exchange for their promising
to pursue peace. After all, that is how we turned Yasser Arafat into
a peace partner. You see, military force serves no role any more in
the post-modern universe. It is passe. It is archaic. Today,
consumer interests dominate the world, and the Islamist activists of
the earth will surely make peace in exchange for some profits from
participating in global trade.
The attacks on Moscow came because you have been insufficiently
sensitive to the needs of the Moslem Other. You took their rhetoric at
face value, whereas we in Israel know that all this rhetoric is empty
and in fact, these people truly want peace. Sure, they praise Hitler
and celebrate genocidal atrocities, but what is it that they REALLY
want? You must negotiate with them even while under attack.
Conditioning negotiations on an end to violence is a no-win situation.
It will simply extend the bloodshed! You must put your own house in
order, and eliminate inequality and injustice inside Russia, and then
the terrorists will no longer target you.
The key is to build a New Middle Eurasia, one in which everyone is
so busy with the important matters of developing tourism,
infrastructure investments and high-technology that they will have no
time to pursue violence. Moreover, if you strike at the perpetrators
of the Moscow airport protests and their supporters, you will simply
expand and enlarge the cycle of violence. Your retaliation bombs will
no doubt injure some innocent children and civilians alongside any
terrorist activists you strike. That will enrage the rest of the world
and make the victims seek revenge. Your violence against these
militants and activists will cause them to hate all Slavs and it will
drive the separatists to embrace terrorism. Moreover, if you refuse
to negotiate with the Moslem separatists, then their leaders will be
toppled and a violent extremist group will take charge. In that case,
you will have lost the window of opportunity to make peace.
Begin by declaring a unilateral ceasefire! Mister Prime Minister,
blessed is the peacemaker. Remember Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. The
entire world will support you and congratulate you if you respond to
these horrific attacks by disarming and opening serious dialogue with
the terror activists. All we are saying is give peace a chance.
Yitzhak Rabin would have approved. Yes, chaver, what you need is
shalom, salaam, peace. You will be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in
recognition. Do not allow yourself to be drawn down into the gutter
of retaliation. Violence never achieves anything. History has no
lessons. History is the dead past.
Follow my example! Provide the Chechen activists and militants
with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles so that they can battle
against the true radicals and extremists. Moreover, they will do so
with no ACLU or Supreme Court to restrain them! Demonstrate your
humanity by paying pensions to any widows and orphans of the
terrorists who blew up the airport. Mister Prime Minister, my own
peace policies have eliminated war, bloodshed and terror from the
Middle East. We now have only peace partners. If you follow in my
footsteps, you can achieve the same lofty goals.

Peacefully yours,
Shimon Peres, Peacemaker-at-Large

Putin won’t take Shimon’s advice?:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2521987/Vladimir-Putin-vows-Russia-will-retaliate-against-Georgia.html

Whatever happens in Egypt, the chances of Israel giving the Golan to Asad for peace have gone from almost zero to zero. People are beginning to realize that what I have said for years is true, that the Arab dictators are not to be trusted because they do not represent the Arab people. Giving the Golan to Asad would be a stupid move. It may take 5, 10 or 15 years, but he will be removed from power. The Syrian people, just like the Egyptian people, will not agree forever to have their future hijacked by Asad and his regime.

AIG, I was thinking about your admonitions and about how you’d feel vindicated now. However, we still have to see whether the new regime in Egypt will indeed ignore the accords signed by the previous one, or respect them, even if grudgingly. My Egyptian friends tell me that the latter is more plausible, and that would then prove that you have been wrong all along.

The new regime in high likelihood would want to prove investment-worthy as the old regime, and that implies respecting prior agreements with the West (including Israel).

On the other hand, had Israel still held-on to occupied Egyptian land, the Egyptians would have had all the excuse they need for belligerency against Israel.

So this argument can be played to the other direction as well, as you can see. Let’s wait and see what happens before jumping to premature conclusions.

Yossef,

Even if the Egyptians do respect the peace treaty the very fact that the change in regime puts the treaty in doubt proves my point. Are you really going to give up the Golan and then just hope that a new Syrian regime respects the peace treaty? That would be taking irresponsible risks with Israel’s security.

And you are wrong about your second point also. Let’s say Israel still holds Sinai and a true democracy emerges in Egypt, what stops Israel from negotiating peace with it and giving it back the Sinai? Wouldn’t the Egyptians like us more for giving the Sinai to them and not to a dictator? Wouldn’t it be a great way to start a relationship with a new regime? And wouldn’t doing this show the West what a great investment the new regime is?

There is only one way to play this argument, because it is right whatever happens.

AIG is here!!!!?!

Ahlain : )

Yossi, although it is too early to conclude anything at this point, I can’t see the next President of Egypt daring to terminate the Camp David accord even if he wanted to.

But it is more likely to expect a considerable setback for the close cooperation that existed frequently between Mubarak and the Israelis… Not only because this is one of the (so far unspoken) demands of the demonstrators, but also because after the endless Wikileaks embarrassments Arab leaders will think twice before plotting anything nasty with their Israeli or even American neocon friends.

AIG,

Welcome back. I still disagree with you … I am confident the Golan is coming back to Syria in less than five years. You know why? because this is the right thing to do and Israel will learn, just like Mubarak learned, that the world has changed.

Alex,

If Syria becomes a democracy in less than 5 years, you are right, otherwise, no Israeli government is going to take such a huge gamble on an Arab dictator that is here today and gone tomorrow.

When will Asad learn that the world has changed? The Syrians want to teach everyone lessons, but they do not seem to learn anything themselves. Just look at how little democratic reforms Asad has made and now Landis is even predicting more oppression following what happened in Egypt.

Israel will give back the Golan either peacefully, or through pressure as a result of war. I agree with Alex, it probably won’t take more than 5 years from now (to see which it’ll do, not necessarily to see a final and complete withdrawal).

Israel has never, and will never, condition peace on Democracy. This is purely AIG’s “condition”, not Israel’s, nor the majority of Israelis’. Israel cannot afford to have only “democratic friends”. Ben Gurion realized this, Begin realized this, as did Rabin, Sharon, Olmert, and even Netanyahu.

Here’s a shocker for AIG: Most World nations, including all the Western nations he knows, have non-democratic allies! Some, are very prominent non-democratic allies, such as China. It is a fantasy to think of having only democratic friends. No nation can afford it, certainly not Israel.

Shai,

What will happen in the next five years that will change things?
If Israel has not given the Golan to Syria’s Asad till now, it never will, especially since what happened in Egypt has proven how fragile Arab dictatorships really are and how much Asad is not worth the risk.

Furthermore, the moment Asad’s Syria made it its official policy to attract foreign investments it lost the Golan forever. You cannot induce foreigners to invest without assuring them there will be peace and quiet. So clearly Syria is not a threat to Israel in any way shape or form and will not initiate any attack on Israel. And now that Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, the whole country is a fair target if Hezbollah attacks Israel. Therefore the Syrians have checkmated themselves in regard to the Golan.

Aig, your point is taken that signing deals with illegitimate regimes is a gamble. But it doesn’t mean that it should be categorically ruled out. Nor does it mean that signing agreements with democracies is risk-free.

Even though it’s preferable to cut deals with a democracy, or any regime that is considered legitimate by the majority of the public, it isn’t always a bad idea to cut deals with non-democracies. The peace deal with Egypt was such a case. Do you think that Israel would have been better off over the last 35 years without peace with Egypt? The benefits of that peace are obvious to you, I assume. There are many examples where it made sense for democracies to cut deals with non-democracies, simply because the down-side risks associated with not doing so being too high.

In addition to having eliminated three decades of possible dangerous situations for Israel, having an existing agreement is also beneficial in the case that the resulting regime will be inclined to respect existing agreements, but not negotiate new ones, or that Israel will be wary of negotiating with the new regime. In those cases the existing peace agreement provides an existing status-quo that would not be otherwise reachable from an initial position of enmity.

Now with respect to Syria, it’s also a gamble, and maybe you’re right that no Israeli leader will take that gamble. We’ll see.

AIG,

What we do know about peace with Egypt over the past 32 years is that not a single Israeli life was lost during that period, which is very very different from the period prior to 1979, where thousands of Israeli lives were lost at Egyptian hands, and many more injured. You cannot predict the future, not with regards to Egypt, nor with regards to Syria. There is no reason to think peace with Syria will not provide us with the same security Egypt provided.

If you had applied your logic back in 1979, you wouldn’t have signed a peace agreement with Egypt, and you might have been responsible for the deaths of many Israelis since. Syria and Israel, as you know, are fighting one another, through Hezbollah, through Hamas, through Iran, and recently through Turkey. In some of those “battles”, we lose lives. In others, we lose diplomatically, we lose economically, we lose strategically. You cannot claim Israel is paying no price in NOT having peace with Syria.

I’ve never been too fond of soothsayers, and especially of naysayers. If you have examples of dictatorships with whom Israel made peace, only to be “sorry for it” later on, please provide them. As far as I know, Israel has only gained from peace with the dictatorship in Egypt and the one in Jordan.

As for the likelihood of war with Syria, I believe there quite a few “wise and experienced” men just prior to October 1973 who, like you, were sure Egypt “will not initiate any attack” (probably verbatim). That’s the neat thing about strategic surprises – they happen when you think they won’t! I’d rather not continue to gamble on when they will or when they won’t. I’d rather have peace, even with a dictatorship.

Btw, as far as I know, no Israeli PM past or present agrees with your idea of making peace only with democracies.

Yossi and Shai,

You are right that if we know or should assume that Asad will be in power in the next 30 years, then my point is moot. But I don’t think you believe so especially after what happened in Egypt.

Yes, the peace deal with Egypt with retrospect has been great for Israel. But, in the same token, if after Sadat was murdered it would have been cancelled, then the verdict would have been different.

As for a strategic surprise from Syria. One should not rule that out and in fact Israeli vigilance proved itself in finding the Syrian nuclear reactor. But clearly, Syrian actions are economic growth oriented and not towards confrontation. The risks of confrontation are very very low.

AIG

Using (lack of) democracy as an excuse to not give back occupied Arab lands is just too simplistic … another “moral clarity” product/excuse. You guys are all about shielding Israel from its obligations to respect international law (such as UNSC resolution 497) through keywords that sound good in America.

You don’t want to give the Golan back to Syria because it is not a democracy … and they don’t want to allow Obama to visit Syria because it supports terror …

Keep sticking to this old strategy .. it is not working anymore, and you are not capable of learning lessons and not capable of changing and dropping this old strategy that has net been working too well recently.

You believe in Democracy? … well then stop being so comfortable that your smart friends of Likud can still ensure that American Senators and Think Tankers are in their pocket … pay attention to the people world wide that are increasingly HATING Israel. Do you need a reminder with the many worldwide polls done each year showing how a manjority of people see Israel the same way they see North Korea and Iran?

Are you on Facebook? … it is a good place for early warning for what is coming your way if you are a Netanyahu or Mubarak who think that they got their illegitimate interests (personal or ideological) covered through their handling of Washington politicians or other power centers.

Let me tell you something about Democracy and peace with with Syria and Egypt and Jordan and about ensuring that peace treaties will last.

When you signed that Camp David treaty with Egypt in 1978 here is what Egyptians looked like (get someone to translate for you)… quite liberal and easy going.

Assuming you signed with a democratically elected President and not with Anwar Sadat, do you think that would have ensured that today you would not have the very different and very much more conservative population? would that have ensured that today’s Egyptian population would not absolutely hate Israel after what Israel did in Gaza in 2009?

Democracy will not ensure that those peace treaties last … Israel’s behavior can be a much better insurance… as long as you are so comfortable with your settlers building and stealing lands and as long as you are too busy planning your Washington politics strategies and ignoring the pressure and anger building within the Arab masses, your neighbors … you will wake up one day to see that you are at war.

Israelis like Zvi Bar’el, Gideon Levy, Shai and Yossi are Israel’s best insurance that peace treaties will last … you and Lieberman are among the good reasons Israel can not yet be at peace with the Arab world.

You want real peace with the Arabs? .. talk to the leaders who are most trusted … Read the polls published the past few years .. Mubarak was never among the popular leaders, Erdogan and Assad and Nasrallah are.

Alex,

Don’t you see that your arguments apply 10,000 fold to Asad’s regime? If he is so loved, let him allow freedom of speech, even a little. Let him not block facebook and force people to use proxies. Let him allow CNN to report from Syria like they report from Egypt.

Is it Israel’s fault that both the Egyptian and Syrian people have become more conservative and religious over the last 30 years? Of course not. It is the fault of the leaders of these countries that have left the mosque as the only political outlet and option for some hope. By killing the future of the their young generations, they have pushed them to religion.

Yes, there is anger in the Arab masses. I have been saying that all along. But it is an anger at not being able to get a good job. It is an anger at lack of freedom. And yes, there is anger at Israel. But Israel is not really the issue and you know it. Tunisia proved that beyond all doubt. The Israeli issue was not even raised there. And in Egypt, the opposition is not making anti-Israel statements either. It is all about the economy and freedom.

Look, I understand that you worry about the minorities in Syria, and you should be worried. But you are standing in front of a freight train that cannot be stopped. Better get out of the way.

AIG,

I will be happy to discuss anger at authoritarian Arab regimes that is due to their own domestic policies. Syria and Egypt are probably just as bad in that sense. I hope President Assad accelerates his reforms. He is personally very popular. The rest of “the regime” is not hated by many, but is not popular at all.

Syrians are not scared to be on Facebook supporting the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions. I have tens of friends who are active on Facebook … if they feared that there is any problem with not abiding by the official ban on facebook, they would not be so casual about using it each day with their original names and pictures. I know many who totally dislike “the regime”, but they “like” President Assad’s many unofficial facebook pages.

But the point I am discussing with you and Yossi and Shai related to the second MAIN reason there is anger in the “Arab street” … Israel is directly, or indirectly behind that anger.

Tunisia is far … let’s look at Syria and Lebanon … the two countries that are still at war with Israel. Regardless of what people think of the regime … everyone is angry at Israel. We want to settle the bloody conflict and concentrate on reforms and not give any corrupt official any excuse to say that the reason we can not reform is that we are in a conflict with Israel.

It is a real excuse and I am among those who understand how Israel and its friends can make life difficult for Syria … Syria spend the reagan administration years and the GWB/Cheney administration years … 16 years in total, defending against their active isolation strategies. Those sanctions that killed Syrian airlines and many other Syrian business activities…

Israel’s friends in Washington and in the Arab world did a lot of damage.

But we want the Golan back and we will tolerate all of that AIG.

Sadly, until you are ready to return to Golan Heights, you are my enemy and you are doing your best to weaken my country… you and your many friends.

I just hope for now to remind you that democracy or not, people can change and you can never guarantee they will still support a peace treaty with Israel … regrdless if that treaty was signed by a Sadat, or by some Egyptian democratically elected President in 1978.

Wait until that Egyptian government is formed and those members of parliament are democratically elected … you will see how much they hate Israel.

Israel lost Turkey (a democracy) … the Turkish people are 65% STRONGLY anti Israel. and it lost Iran before, and it lost Egypt … and it lost Lebanon (a majority of the Lebanese people) …

Israel chose the territories over peace …

But I am confident this will change … in less than 5 years. And I am confident that political reforms will also take place within the same period.

I just hope all of that will take place with minimal violence.

Just on time Roger Cohen writes:”Exit the Israel Alibi”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/opinion/01iht-edcohen01.html?ref=global

Alex,

You can keep saying Asad or the regime or parts of it are not hated or even loved but you know that all the regime’s actions point the other way. The regime is very paranoid. Only free elections will prove what you say about the regime, but that is not in the cards. (As a side note, if the Syrian government really approves of facebook, why is it forcing people to use it through proxies? Seriously, what is the logic behind this?)

The Golan, the “Zionist Entity” etc. etc. are all excuses that the Arab people are not buying anymore. Ignore this at your own risk.
Of course most Arabs hate Israel, but they know that it is not Israel that is the cause of their troubles. It is their regimes. Syria’s economy is where it is because of Hafez and Bashar’s policies. Not because of Israel’s policies.

I commend you for wanting the Golan back.
That is only natural. But you must see that the dichotomy “either the Golan or the economy” or “either the Golan or democracy” is not convincing anyone. So far the Syrian people have gotten neither the Golan nor economic prosperity nor democracy. They are not stupid. A democratic Syria with a strong economy would be much better placed to get the Golan back than Asad’s Syria.

AIG,

As I said, you are an enemy and you can continue to see things from your perspective. I agreed with some of your opinions, but the rest is standard Likudnik wishful thinking.

Banning Facebook is bizarre … because it is only banned by name. No one was able to give me a good answer as to why they are doing that.

By the way, your ever expanding right wing part of Israel is moving towards less tolerance. Here is a Facebook example from today.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/rightists-launch-battle-to-block-facebook-pages-of-left-wing-groups-1.340398

I’ll give you an example why some reforms are easier to do after we get Israel off our back:

You sign peace with Israel and Israel calls for calm in your country:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8293536/Egypt-crisis-Israel-rallies-to-support-of-Egyptian-regime.html

You don’t sign peace, and Israel tries to cause trouble in your country:
http://israelkurdistannetwork.blogspot.com/2009/12/israel-kurd-free-online.html

Syria WILL implement some initial basic political reforms … and when that happens, Israel WILL encourage some of the new Kurds in Syria (long-time Syrian Kurds are not Israeli friends) to take advantage of the opening to demonstrate and create some chaos in Syria.

Similarly, the Saudis WILL pump money into any elections to push their own semi-wahabi candidates or their secular Saudis puppets.

Except .. if Syria is at peace with Israel, Israel and the United States and its Saudis puppets will be nice enough to not interfere and take advantage of the opening to disrupt things for their Syrian friends.

Alex,

Both pro-regime and pro-democracy people in Syria view Israel as an enemy and I perfectly understand that. What I don’t understand is why you think you can convince most Syrians, most of them that view Israel as an enemy, that only a totalitarian regime like Asad’s is the way to fight Israel? Asad makes a lot of declarations about Israel, so does Nasrallah. You think we will take this as an excuse to let go of our freedoms?

As Cohen writes, this excuse of yours is no more. Syria is weak because of its policies, not because of Israel. Syria’s economy does not generate jobs because Syrian economic policy was bad and is still bad. The longer you make excuses for the Syrian regime and the longer it stays in power. The bigger the backlash is going to be. And it is not going to be against Israel.

AIG

Cohen is one of my favorite opinion writers. I like him because he is always spotting the right lessons.

I love what happened in Egypt nad in Tunisia … because everyone got a very easy to learn lesson.

Fighting Israel alone without economic and political reforms will not do. But reforms alone will not do either for the set of American/Israeli puppets like Mubarak… An arab leader will need to do well enough on both fronts … This is their lesson.

You know well what is your lesson in Israel … but if you prefer to learn the wrong lesson from what is happening or if you just want to sit back and enjoy the lessons that Arab leaders learned … enjoy.

Alex,

I will believe the Asad regime “learned” anything when I see credible reforms in Syria. Even in the last two years, with Obama at the helm in the US, I have not seen any significant democratic reforms.

As long as we agree that economic and political reforms are essential and cannot be masked with slogans about fighting Israel, that is fine. I also agree with you that it is very likely that a democratic Egypt will have a different attitude towards the Palestinian issue. They may even open the border with Gaza (which I think is very good long term for Israel).

As for Israel, our lesson is clear. Beware of agreements signed with dictators.

No one is talking about HOW one brings Democracy and Freedom to the Middle East, to nations, peoples and cultures that have never experienced such things. It is easy to demand or to pretend to encourage democracy, without truly understanding how it should come about. And, even worse, when there finally is a glimpse of hope, when a people shows readiness and willingness to partake in one of the practices of democracy – free elections – most in the West refuse to recognize the results!

How can the U.S. and Israel pretend to want Democracy in the Middle East, when they completely rejected the free and democratic results of the 2006 Palestinian Elections (the first truly-free elections in the Arab World)?

Here in Israel, and in the U.S., let’s not pretend we like what we’re seeing. We don’t. We liked the dictator that welcomed us in his palace, while his people were starving in the streets. We liked him, and still do, as long as he keeps the “bad guys” (MB) away from us. We’re willing to accept the price the Egyptian people have to pay – it’s their’s to pay anyway, not ours, so it’s not so bad.

And the same goes for the Palestinian people. Let Abbas become a ruthless ruler, let Fatah execute and imprison and torture their people if necessary, just so long as they don’t lose out to Hamas. THAT kind of Democracy, we won’t accept. That’s the kind of democracy we’ll go to war against.

If we’re already in the business of democracy-consultancy, let’s at least be honest about our own preferences for the region.

Shai,

I cannot agree more. We have to change our attitude and embrace, no demand, democratic reforms in Arab countries even if it costs us short term. Otherwise, we will pay the price long term. Slowly but surely, people will understand this in Israel.

That doesn’t mean that if an Arab country elects a government hostile to Israel we should embrace that government or country. On the contrary, we should work hard to convince the people that elected this government to change their minds next elections.

I think that the attitude that prevails in Lebanon will prevail in all Arab countries that become democratic. They will hate Israel and be against a peace treaty, but they will also be against war. And that is good enough for me.

AIG,

One needn’t “embrace” his enemy. One need make peace with him.

Encouraging the Palestinian people to have free and democratic elections was a good thing. But rejecting the results of those elections was stupid, and showed the Palestinian people our “true face” (Israel and America’s). That what we cared about wasn’t really their freedom, but our freedom – freedom to do as we wish in the region. To continue to Occupy, to fight their resistance, and to exist not as equals within the region, but as rulers.

If the MB take over Egypt, we’re bound to make the same mistake. We’ll announce that “we” don’t recognize them as the legitimate representatives of the Egyptian people. As if “we” have any say whatsoever in it. And why shouldn’t we do so also in Egypt? We did it with the Palestinians, we can do it with others. Unless the dictators we like are in power.

If we really cared about the people in our region, we should first and foremost prove to them that we are here to exist as equals. Not equal only-if we like them, like their rulers, like their political leaders, but equals regardless of the system they choose or have to live to under.

They don’t choose our leaders, and we mustn’t try to choose theirs. They entire Arab World is ready to recognize us tomorrow morning, despite the Liebermans, the Eldads, the Ayalons, and the Left that has built more settlements and started more wars and operations than any other political party in Israel. Despite the 43.5 year Occupation of the Palestinian people, which today seems farther from an end than it has ever been. The Arab World, all 26 of its nations, have unanimously voted, on 4 separate occasions since 2002, to recognize us and make peace with us, if we’re ready to withdraw to the 1967 borders.

They never stipulated what type of government or people will exist in Israel at the time. And we must also not stipulate what has to exist in theirs.

Shai,

If the MB take over Egypt then we will deal with them depending on their attitude to us. Again, it could very well be that a fair election in Egypt will bring to power a government hostile to Israel. Do we then have to applaud the Egyptian people’s choice? We can say that we are happy that there was a democratic process but we are disappointed from the result and that both countries will suffer from it.

As for the Arab plan, Zoabi makes clear today in the Guardian that it includes the Right of Return. Is that something any Jew in Israel can support?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/31/palestine-israel-status-not-negotiable

I am not stipulating which government the Arabs should have. I am merely stating that signing a peace agreement with a non-democratic one is stupid. Why do you keep interpreting this as if I am demanding a certain form of government in Arab countries?

No person in his right mind believes Israel will ever accept millions of Palestinians back into Israel. Even Khaled Mashaal has stated, at least twice in the past year that I can recall, that Hamas would be willing to accept the 1967 borders. From Wikileaks we also read about the offers Israel has made to the PA over the years, always discussing some symbolic number of a few thousand refugees. The Right of Return will be to the State of Palestine, not to Israel, and I doubt there’s anyone in the Arab World who thinks otherwise.

If I understand you correctly, you refuse to make peace with a non-democracy, meaning with anyone in the Middle East. If we’re to apply that to Egypt and Jordan, 1979 and 1994 should not have produced peace agreements with these two nations. And, more specifically, we shouldn’t have given back the Sinai to a non-democratic Egypt.

I think the assumption that Israel can exist in the region without peace is wrong. Was the Sinai worth another couple wars with Egypt, with more thousands dying and tens of thousands injured? Is the Golan, with its 16,000 Jewish residents, worth another war with Syria? All our top Intelligence people are saying the next war will be a horrific one. They’re not suggesting Israel will cease to exist. But they are saying many will die, probably many more than in previous wars. Is the Golan worth it?

Shai,

Please, in the case of Egypt at least 32 years of peace ensued and I admit that was very beneficial for Israel. I am saying that expecting Asad to stay as long in power is unrealistic and that taking a chance with him is much riskier. In addition I am saying that Israel’s long term interest is to be surrounded by democracies and that we should accept short term setbacks to support such a goal.

The next war will be horrific for all sides and that is why the Syrians won’t start one. Why do you think they might do so? I believe that as long as we hold the Golan, the risk of war is actually smaller.

Hanging Chads in Palestine NewZ

How can the U.S. and Israel pretend to want Democracy in the Middle East, when they completely rejected the free and democratic results of the 2006 Palestinian Elections (the first truly-free elections in the Arab World)?

Shai,

So the Palestinians hold an election and suddenly you think this is democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006

When is the next election? What are the term limits? What are the powers of the Palestinian President? Can the president fire the legislative councils like our friends Hosni and HRH Abdullah? Can Obama fire the Senate and the House of Representatives? I think not.

An election where the winning thug gets to rule for life is no election and is not remotely democratic. Democracy is more than a vote, it includes well defined term limits, rule-of-law and an unfettered judiciary to make sure everything works like clockwork.

Every person and every leader must follow the law including Olmert, Sharon, Clinton and Katsav. Arab leaders too, that is, if they really want democracy.

Maybe Israelis are now feeling their growing alienation and geographical isolation after Iran, Turkey, Egypt and other neighbours are becoming less sympathetic to a state that still uses european guilt and irrational fears to justify grabbing more lands and depriving people from their rights.
Maybe then they will accept the fact they Israel is just a small island in a sea of antagonistic forces and that the only friends are thousands of mile away.
They may loose their arrogance and that may be a new beginning.

AIG,

You said: “Israel’s long term interest is to be surrounded by democracies and that we should accept short term setbacks to support such a goal.”

I certainly agree with that. But the question is what does “accept short term setbacks” mean. Does it mean holding on to territory, just to sign a peace treaty with a democratically-elected leader? Why must that be a prerequisite? The record shows us that “even dictators” uphold peace agreements.

In fact, why hold on to the Golan (not talking about the West Bank now), if we know that by doing so we’re continuing a war with Syria, via Hezbollah, via Hamas, via Iran, and recently via Turkey? We can’t claim this war is costing us nothing. And what is the price for ending this war with Syria? The Golan, with its 16,000 Jewish residents? There were more Israelis in a local basketball game I went to last week than on the entire Golan.

Don’t get me wrong – I will have tears in my eyes the day we give back the Golan. I love to visit the Golan, it’s beautiful, still virgin, great air, unbelievable place. A part of me would hate to lose it. But part of those tears will be tears of optimism and hope. They’ll be a rejoicing that we have finally ended our conflict with an important neighbor, Syria. That now, I will get to enjoy the Golan not by myself, but also with a Syrian friend. It will be the right way to move forward. To secure a better future for my children, and the children of the region.

Even in the West Bank I’m realistic enough to know that we can’t give back 100% of the territory, and move 500,000 Jewish people back into Israel. Just as we can’t take 500,000 Palestinian refugees back in. And I also know that we will not withdraw from even 10% of the West Bank until we feel there’s someone on the other side that can guarantee the safety of Central Israel. It is not like the withdrawal from Gaza or Lebanon. I don’t feel Abu Mazen can, under the current reality, guarantee this. But the Golan is different, and Syria is different. Bashar Assad can, in my opinion, and in the opinion of all Intelligence Heads I’ve heard (from as far back as Uri Saguy to Amos Yadlin and recently Meir Dagan), guarantee Syria’s side of the bargain. They all say Syria is serious.

Why wait?

Btw, no one expected Sadat, with a weak and very limited Egyptian Army, to attack Israel in 1973. All the experts, including the Head of Aman, the Army COGS, and the Defense Minister, all said it wouldn’t happen. Sadat simply couldn’t win. And they were right – he couldn’t. But they were also wrong – he never intended to win. He had very limited goals, and they were sufficient to go to war. Egyptian tanks never reached even halfway into the Sinai. They stopped shortly after crossing the Suez, and “shocked” even (and especially) the Syrians. Sadat deceived Syria. He had limited goals, and went for a very limited war. But even in that limited war, we lost over 2,000 soldiers, and thousands more were injured.

Again all the Heads of Intelligence are warning that a future war will be far more costly than previous ones. It won’t be fought with tanks in a desert 200 kms away. It’ll be fought in our cities and our towns and our villages. Many many thousands could die. Sure, we’ll inflict far worse damage upon our enemies. But even if we kill 100,000, to every 10,000 on our side, is it worth it? Is it worth risking this war, for the Golan?

I don’t think so. I know it’s not.

(Apologies to everyone for the long response… as always…)

They may loose their arrogance and that may be a new beginning.

Why-Discuss,

Withdrawing from the Sinai, the West Bank, and Lebanon and trying to negotiate a final peace treaty with the Palestinians and the Syrians doesn’t seem arrogant to me. Maybe to you. Perhaps because Israel has successfully survived in a sea of opposition you feel Israel is arrogant.

Actually, Professor Josh’s latest thread…

Syrian Authorities Jubilant about Prospect of Mubarak’s Fall and Shifting Balance of Power in the Region

seems fairly arrogant to me. Just MHO.

Well said Shai, I completely agree with you w.r.t Syria and the Golan.

Shai,

The risk of war is very small as the Syrian regime is rational and understands the cost of starting a war. What exactly can the Syrians gain from starting such a war? They are obsessed with raising foreign capital which means that going to war will be against all their plans.
And if the Syrians are not rational, why sign a peace treaty with them?

We lost 2000 soldiers in the Yom Kipur war because we had no good answer to the SAMs. This is not the case today as the attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor proves. Furthermore, our air force strength relative to the Syrian one has improved orders of magnitude since 1973.

AIG,

I agree with you – Bashar Assad is very rational. That’s why we should make peace with him. Sadat was also rational, but we chose to reject him in the two years prior to 1973, and paid heavily for it.

In the Yom Kipur War we lost soldiers on the ground because our air force couldn’t protect them sufficiently. But in the next war, it won’t be soldiers that will die, it will be civilians. No air force can protect against thousands of missiles fired from four different directions, at every major city and town in Israel.

Shai,

So let me understand, Asad will start a war by shooting missiles at Israel? Why would he do that? How will that help him get the Golan?

AIG,

My last comment for the day… 🙂

I certainly don’t think it’s my place here to advise my enemy how to fight me. I think looking at Sadat’s limited goals, which eventually gained him the Sinai, is sufficient to understand that Syria has options, as well as limited ones.

I don’t doubt for a minute that it’ll suffer more than Israel in such a scenario, just as Egypt did. I do fear that, like Egypt, it’ll be ready to suffer now, to receive the Golan soon afterwards. Sadat spelled it out for reporters immediately after the 1973 war.

Don’t forget – not a single nation on the face of this planet recognizes the Golan as Israeli territory. After such a war, besides paying a huge toll in lives, pressure from all our allies will be such that Israel will have to give up the Golan. So will it be worth it? Will thousands of families of the dead and injured think it was worth it?

We’ve been to this “movie” before. We don’t have to go through it again.

Shai,

We will have to disagree. Syria has very limited options. In addition to what I said before, there is no Cold War and no Soviet Union to stop the war if things go bad for Syria.

In case one needs a reminder:

WSJ: Where do you see the peace process? Does it seem to you dead?

President al-Asad: No, it is not dead because you do not have any other option. If you want to talk about a ‘dead peace process,’ this means everybody should prepare for the next war, and this is something that is not in our interest or in the interest of the region.

Thank you Badr.

AIG, we cannot miss out on Bashar Assad. Dictator, Benevolent Leader, or democratically-elected Austrian premier, if your enemy stretches his hand out in peace, we must grab it. We know the price, they know the price, now let’s close the deal and end 62.5 years of war and bloodshed between us.

Hand Stretched out in Peace NewZ

your enemy stretches his hand out in peace, we must grab it

AIG,

Before you give the Golan to Assad, just remember, for some strange reason, Assad refuses to isolate his good friend Ahmadinejad. So apparently, Assad’s relationship with this terror-supporting anti-semite is more important than the Golan.

Akbar,

In the 1990’s, there was no talk of “Assad’s good friend in Iran”. The topic didn’t exist, and you didn’t see Israel running to give back the Golan.

If I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting the minute Syria dropped the anti-semite, Israel would be ready to give up the Golan, right? 🙂

As they say in Hebrew, “between us”, you know as well as I do that the Golan and Iran have nothing to do with one another. It’s a nice excuse that sell well, that’s all.

If I recall correctly, Menachem Begin never required Sadat to sever his ties with any of the other Arab States that hated Israel no less than Iran.

Quasi intelligence sources are reporting that the nominated Vice President by Mubarak is not only a CIA agent but also a socalled friend of Israel. The reports suggest that he is allowing Israeli sharpshooters into Cairo for the sole purpose of killing the leaders of the protest movement as well as both the Coptic and Islamic spekespersons.

The outlook if such reports are factual is for radicalizing the protests and increased violence and bloodshed. In effect its either US/Israel/Mubarak or the Egyptian people.

Things are getting ugly in Egypt, The Army probably has to take over to avoid blood , then consult with trusted Turkey on how to move to Democratic rule,
The treaty with Egypt should stay but Israel should learn that only peace will secure it’s border with all it’s neighbours .

Beace of the Brave NewZ

In the 1990’s, there was no talk of “Assad’s good friend in Iran”.

Shai,

“In the 1990’s” is gone. Last I checked, Iran is, NOW, a very dangerous theocracy hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons, arming terrorists with ever more sophisticated weapons, as well as erradicating Israel.

“The Times They Are A Changin'”

If the Golan Heights are so important to Syria, I’m sure they can work something out;)

Call me naive, but if Israel returned to the 1967 borders, gave back the Golan Heights, and thereby made peace with her neighbours, who would want to go to war? Who would then listen to Ahmadinajads’ call for the destruction of Israel? In all likelihood, he would retract from that position himself, as it would not be popular among his people, or with anyone else for that matter.

The way I see it, there would no longer be any support for any military action, not by governments or even resistance groups (there’d be nothing to resist). More importantly, the people would not then get behind such empty causes.

What then would be gained by a war with Israel? You’d get international condemnation, major loss of support from the people, and suffer heavy losses of life and infrastructure due to Israels’ superior weapons and allies. I mean, Israel gets huge support even when it’s in the wrong. Imagine if it was attacked when there was no longer a legitimate cause!

What would be more likely then would be prosperous trade between Israel and Arab countries. As long as there is a comprehensive peace in the region, where the rights of others are being respected and protected, tight-gripped governments would no longer be needed.

In other words, President Bashar Al-Assad could finally retire and get some rest, provided measures can be put in place to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from oppressing non-sunni citizens. I really don’t envy him his job. The reward does not even come close to justifiying the workload + pressure + risk. Last I checked, his Net Worth does not enter him into any rich lists.

It’s probably just a pipe-dream, but this is the kind of peace I wish to be alive to see.

I think that Israel needs to re-realize that this war and hatred initiated from the occupying of the lands of a country, against the will of the government and/or people of that country. For some reason, this seemed acceptable by the moral compass of the first settlers. The resulting consequences cannot be reversed (i.e. you cannot evict all the Israelis from the country), but two important measures can be taken. Firstly, return to a reasonable set of borders (e.g. 1967), and secondly stop repeating the cause of the problem in making new settlements.

It’s no wonder that anti-semitism has spread so rampantly. It’s not because of a few KKK type hate-filled racists, as that type of hater doesn’t really have a lot of influence these days. What it really stems from is people looking at the actions of the Israeli government and not differentiating between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Israeli’. Meaning, these types of atrocities are NOT intrinsic to Jewish nature. Sad really that some people are blind to this, but not surprising given the climate this past half-century.

What it typically means by extension, is that people like Netenyahu and Lieberman are the most influential anti-semites in the world, by virtue of their willful actions that, especially to the uninformed, give strong false impressions that to be Jewish is to be evil. The fact that these kinds of people are consistently elected does not help matters.

And that brings me to an important point regarding so-called democracies and dictatorships. When a dictator is bad (i.e. Mubarak), it’s hard to blame the people, as they are not the ones who put him there, and not the ones who necessarily wanted to keep him. But when a bad government is democratically elected by the people, you have to question whether that is the kind of government these people are aiming for. If it tends to happen very often, that suspicion is strengthened. Mostly though, it tends to be a choice between the lesser of two evils. That is what I don’t like about most democracies.

George Carlin (R.I.P), said at least two things that I think are profound.

1. In America, anyone can become President. That’s the problem.

2. [Summarised] Everybody says politicians suck. I don’t. Because politicians come from families, homes, schools, churches, businesses and universities. In other words, they come from the public, and the public elects them. So, the public sucks.

Neither do I believe that a democracy is the best form of government for all countries and all circumstances. It works well sometimes, and other times it’s a terrible hindrance to progress. Take for example the situation recently discussed between Syria and the U.S. If President Bashar says he is ready for peace, and ready to make and stand by an agreement, then that’s that. If President Obama says the same thing, there still remains a jungle of mountains in terms of obstacles, before any agreement can be made, and the whole process could fall apart at any moment.

If somehow the U.S senate/congress came to an agreement, but Syria had become a democracy, imagine the opposition, or at least the varying conditions that could be placed on a peace agreement. That’s another thing wrong with todays democracies. There seems always to be a party called “The Opposition”, as though they must disagree with everything the other side says and does, and make them to appear foolish just to further their own political agenda. Sometimes they do agree, but even that reminds me of another George Carlin saying: “Bi-partisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”

The real fundamental problem with democracy these days, is that popularity almost always overrides merit and fitness.

So, a country being run democratically will not necessarily be more open or accomodating to peace, whether by principle or difficulty of due process. Though none of that matters if you choose to hold on to what is not rightfully yours, as you will always be opposed. And if you want the real truth, the plethora of agendas in this world will never allow for an honest comprehensive peace, regardless of government type, conditions and circumstances, concessions, religion, race, international laws, human rights, etc. There always stands to be too much gain in war for some party.

In closing though, if I had to choose between a well-intentioned dictator and a farse or corrupt democracy, I would say dictate away.

(Sorry for the long post)