Israel: Golan Heights Up for Grabs?

Patzek

New Member
I agree with the one above me, totally.

Don't try and go militarily againts Israel, you wont get anything from trying to.. how you said that. " bullying " us around.

You can't come to our regioun and try to dictate us the rules of defending our country.
If the Air force done things not acceptable on you, go againts it diplomatic till they high ranks people will understand that it is not appropriate.

Europe can't drag us around in Lebanon, this is not Europe's war, this is not Europe's region.
Israel is the one having border with Lebanon, not Europe, and France need to understand that.
Of course that I doesn't support to aggressive flights againts France, and I seriously have no idea why we need to show that we control here and not them, ( its obviously not up to me ), cause they're our allies in the end.


And for whoever said something abour the Mirage's RAFAEL's and Typhoons.
Don't be delusional people, this is Israel's pitch, not yours. I wont even get down to this level saying why you can't do that, i'm beyond those childish things, that are not practical in any way.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Europe can't drag us around in Lebanon, this is not Europe's war, this is not Europe's region.
Israel is the one having border with Lebanon, not Europe, and France need to understand that.
The countries in the Med can be considered to be bordering Europe.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It is not only europe it is the UN. ;)
We have alle the right we need to criticise your actions if we think that they are wrong as well as you have the right to criticise us for actions you think are wrong.
 

Ibizan Hound

Banned Member
I agree with the one above me, totally.

Don't try and go militarily againts Israel, you wont get anything from trying to.. how you said that. " bullying " us around.
Israelis are the strangers in the region. Your European brothers have every right to guide your moves. They arm, fund and protect you. You are theirs.
 

Patzek

New Member
Oh really - please elaborate a little bit more on your post reply please
Don't waste your time on him mate.
I know this forum have more intelligent people than in other's so they'll know who to take seriously and who doesn't.

Keep up the good work.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Don't waste your time on him mate.
I know this forum have more intelligent people than in other's so they'll know who to take seriously and who doesn't.

Keep up the good work.
I am in total agreement with you.:)
 

.pt

New Member
Admin: you need to consider the way you post before hitting the submit button. this comment was inapprop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4. The Wider Regional Context
The United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the
Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by
the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all
fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment
to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This
commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between
Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to
exist), and particularly Syria—which is the principal transit
point for shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, and which supports
radical Palestinian groups.
The United States does its ally Israel no favors in avoiding
direct involvement to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. For several
reasons, we should act boldly:

The Way Forward—A New Approach
• There is no military solution to this conflict.
• The vast majority of the Israeli body politic is tired of being a
nation perpetually at war.
• No American administration—Democratic or Republican—
will ever abandon Israel.
• Political engagement and dialogue are essential in the Arab-
Israeli dispute because it is an axiom that when the political
process breaks down there will be violence on the ground.
• The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set
forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and
in the principle of “land for peace.”
• The only lasting and secure peace will be a negotiated peace
such as Israel has achieved with Egypt and Jordan.
This effort would strongly support moderate Arab governments
in the region, especially the democratically elected
government of Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority under
President Mahmoud Abbas.
RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and
sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive
Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon and Syria, and
President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution
for Israel and Palestine.
RECOMMENDATION 14: This effort should include—as
soon as possible—the unconditional calling and holding of

meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the
Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and
the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria
on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge
Israel’s right to exist) on the other. The purpose of these
meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the
Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks—
one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.
RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements
of that negotiated peace should be:
• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution
1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for
Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political
assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik
Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use
of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons
and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s
problem with Hezbollah.)
• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah
for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force
soldiers.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the
democratically elected government of Lebanon.

• A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting
through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian
groups.
• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment
of Israel’s right to exist.
• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and
in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis
should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee
for Israel that could include an international force on the
border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties
.
RECOMMENDATION 17: Concerning the Palestinian issue,
elements of that negotiated peace should include:
• Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and
338 and to the principle of land for peace, which are the
only bases for achieving peace.
• Strong support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
and the Palestinian Authority to take the lead in preparing
the way for negotiations with Israel.
• A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating
the cease-fire reached between the Palestinians
and the Israelis in November 2006.
• Support for a Palestinian national unity government.
Pages 54-57 of The Iraq Study Group Report

link
 

Big-E

Banned Member
I think when Bush heard cooperating with Iran he already threw these recommendations in the trash.
 

contedicavour

New Member
I think when Bush heard cooperating with Iran he already threw these recommendations in the trash.
Honestly it has already been done... in 2001 over Afghanistan. The Herat area of Western Afghanistan is ethnically/culturally/linguistically close to Iran and it took some Iranian persuasion to ensure that the area remained and remains calm... Part of the Italian contingent of ISAF is stationed there and despite occasional terrorist attacks the area is manageable.
Ensuring similar collaboration over the southern half of Iraq would be key to get us out of this huge mess... because the Iraqi troops could focus on the Sunni triangle.

cheers
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Honestly it has already been done... in 2001 over Afghanistan.
I see Iranian/US relations somewhat strained since 01'. Ahmadinejad has pushed this relationship to the breaking point. That was at a time they actually feared us. After Iraq this is no longer the case.
 

contedicavour

New Member
I see Iranian/US relations somewhat strained since 01'. Ahmadinejad has pushed this relationship to the breaking point. That was at a time they actually feared us. After Iraq this is no longer the case.
Right. Though in a negotiation Iran may stand to gain (from more international recognition, end to sanctions, more influence over Iraq, more international investment, and may be help with a civilian nuclear programme) just as the US (a decent way to get out of a less messy Iraq, a stabilized Iraq and Afghanistan, an open gate towards Central Asia's resources which are currently being eaten up by Russia and China) ...
There may still be ground for fruitful negotiations. Since unfortunately that president is still there to stay for a while, with expensive oil and civilian wars going on in neighboring states. The guy is even popular with a sizeable part of the population :(

cheers
 

wittmanace

Active Member
the real point is that one can only make peace with one's enemies, not one's friends. and i might add that the threat of the us military really isnt all that scary these days to the people involved...the us is loosing the war in iraq and israel were seen to be beaten by hezbollah. then there is also the lack of progress in afghanistan, paired with the taliban's resurgence. the threats hold much less weight now, with america unable to threaten invasion in the way it could before iraq and afghanistan. bombing as a limited tool will simply confirm their propaganda, and hurt people other than the leadership....last thing one should do in this situation is rally and unify the potential enemy, which bombing has historically proven to do...

ANOTHER war against a ME country, after lebanon and all, would have a big unifying effect on the islamic world, including key us allies in the gwt such as pakistan. the question i wonder at times is, how long can the house of saud hold on as a us ally, given the views of most in the KSA. adding another war against an ME or islamic state would seriously damage saudi us relations by necessity for the royal family. we also need to consider the fact that egypt's regime will have their backs seriously against the wall if they keep supporting/being on good terms with the us in such a scenario.

lets look at the unifying effect of events in lebanon...shia and sunni groups praise one another...al qaeda, hamas and hezbollah all unifying their cause is a seriously heavy issue, never mind all the other fragmented groups or even states ......
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
the real point is that one can only make peace with one's enemies, not one's friends. and i might add that the threat of the us military really isnt all that scary these days to the people involved...the us is loosing the war in iraq and israel were seen to be beaten by hezbollah. then there is also the lack of progress in afghanistan, paired with the taliban's resurgence. the threats hold much less weight now, with america unable to threaten invasion in the way it could before iraq and afghanistan. bombing as a limited tool will simply confirm their propaganda, and hurt people other than the leadership....last thing one should do in this situation is rally and unify the potential enemy, which bombing has historically proven to do...

ANOTHER war against a ME country, after lebanon and all, would have a big unifying effect on the islamic world, including key us allies in the gwt such as pakistan. the question i wonder at times is, how long can the house of saud hold on as a us ally, given the views of most in the KSA. adding another war against an ME or islamic state would seriously damage saudi us relations by necessity for the royal family. we also need to consider the fact that egypt's regime will have their backs seriously against the wall if they keep supporting/being on good terms with the us in such a scenario.

lets look at the unifying effect of events in lebanon...shia and sunni groups praise one another...al qaeda, hamas and hezbollah all unifying their cause is a seriously heavy issue, never mind all the other fragmented groups or even states ......
That is complete rubbish. Hezbollah got absolutely pounded by the Israelis. So severely in fact that Hezbollah's chief admitted publicly that if they could have realised Israel's response, they never would have attacked Israel in the first place (in the latest round of fighting).

If you think the US isn't too scary these days, I suggest you STRONGLY think again. The capability held by the US is simply unbelievable. They tried to effect regime change in Iraq, which hasn't worked. You should not confuse this failure with a lack of capability however.

The USA's capability to "destroy a Country" for all intents and purposes, still exists, and is in fact arguably greater now than in 2003. If any country SERIOUSLY p**ed off the US again, I'd suggest they'd probably just flatten said Country's military, destroy it's Government (ruin the economy in the process) and then leave saying "best of luck" and don't do it again... :nutkick
 

merocaine

New Member
That is complete rubbish. Hezbollah got absolutely pounded by the Israelis. So severely in fact that Hezbollah's chief admitted publicly that if they could have realised Israel's response, they never would have attacked Israel in the first place (in the latest round of fighting).
I'm sorry Israel completely pounded the Lebanon. ie flattened its infrastuture.
That what Nasserallah was refering to. He thought it might evolve into a border war between the IDF and Hezzbullah at worst, not an attack on the Lebanon as a whole.
Just saying Hezzbullah got flattened doesent make it so, no matter how reassuring it may sound.
 

wittmanace

Active Member
aussie digger....i did say it wasnt all that scary 'to those people involved'. my point here is how they see it. the threat of force only works if the enemy is scared. i not saying the us cant do it, im saying the people involved here (ahmadinejad and so forth) really dont seem scared.

the probelm for the us miltary is not a lack of arms or equipment, but that i just cant see the population (civilian) being willing to face another war so soon in the middle east, or against a state that many might believe might use chem bio weapons in a terrorist manner. their hands are tied.

i was also stating how iran, for example, sees the situation.....it can be different from reality but doesnt change how it seems to be perceived by iran.
and, respectfully, i disagree about hezbollah not winning. its like saying the soviet union didnt win 'the great patriotic war' because they lost more men than nazi germany. their objective was to inflict casualties on israel and be seen to be freedom fighters and to garner more support in lebanon, as well as taking heat off the occupied territories. all these things occured. israel sought to destroy hezbollah and appear stronger. neither happened...
 
Top