Middle East Defence & Security

[STURM]

Israel says will ‘double settlements’ in occupied Golan Heights

PM Bennett says investment in the region was prompted by US recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Syrian territory.

www.aljazeera.com

Israel approves NIS 1b. plans for Golan Heights, will build two new towns

The approval of the NIS one billion plan strengthens Israel's presence in the Golan Heights territory.

www.jpost.com

This is a political issue but it has security implications and that's why I'm posting it here.

Israel has always maintained that it needs to hold on to the Golan Heights because withdrawing from it would jeopardise its security. It's on this basis that it continues to occupy the Gol;an Heights in full violation of UN Resolution 242. The war in Syria and the presence of the Iranians enabled Israel to maintain the narrative that it can't withdraw and it's hard to disagree with this.

The question is with the building of settlements; illegal by international law as Israel occupies but does not own the Golan Heights; signify that Israel has zero intention of ever leaving? Or will be in willing to leave in the future if some agreement can be reached with Syria? If Assad had been toppled and replaced by the Western and Gulf Arabs Syrian 'moderates' [who actually largely weren't moderate]; would it had had any effect on the Golan Heights? Moving people in and building settlements on occupied land to cement one's hold there is of course nothing new; a practice which stretched back for centuries.

If I recall Israel correctly it had a small number of settlements in the occupied Sinai but of course withdrawing from the Sinai was a price worth paying because of Camp David; peace with Egypt and benefiting from American largess. As part of a previous agreement with the PA; Israel also vacated some settlements in the occupied West Bank. With the Golan Heights from an Israel perspective there is nothing to be gained from withdrawing from it; similar to the situation with the Shebaa Farms. About a decade ago there were unconfirmed reports that talks were being held between Syria and Israel and that Israel agreed to a partly withdrawal of the Golan Heights in exchange for Syria severing links with Iran.

In the coming decades will the Golan Heights be the cause of a major issue with Syria and what message does the continued occupation of the heights send to others who in the future may find themselves in a similar position?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The question is with the building of settlements; illegal by international law as Israel occupies but does not own the Golan Heights

IIRC conquest by war is perfectly legal as long as it is done in self defense. Syria used the Golan even before that to bombard Israeli cities (altitude advantage for artillery), and formally the 1948 war was a joint invasion into Israel.
Syria basically legally forfeited exclusive rights when it started a war it couldn't finish.

signify that Israel has zero intention of ever leaving?

There was a peace process in which Israel offered to give Syria the Golan, but both Assads have refused. To them, keeping the conflict alive to maintain support (a dictatorship coming from a minority group will naturally struggle) was more important than the scarcely populated and hard to develop region which was only significant to Syria for the purpose of attacking Israel. Peace would nullify this advantage.
Peace with Israel would only result in a massive increase in the wellbeing of Syrians, so the tradeoff was not worth it for Assads.

The civil war was the final proof that Assad cannot be trusted with any territory with or without peace, so any future peace deal will exclude the Golan.

Moving people in and building settlements on occupied land to cement one's hold there is of course nothing new; a practice which stretched back for centuries.

It's not about a grand strategy. Israel does not need to establish cities there to hold it. It does it because the Golan being its, is a done deal and has been for decades, and today's population growth, housing crisis, and concentration of the population in the center and shoreline, need to be solved by spreading development far and wide. The Negev has been in slow but steady development for decades, but the Golan is a much cheaper area to develop, and of greater economical importance.
It's not seen as settlements in Israel, or throughout much of the world. It's economical.
A simple look at a map would show the area is under-developed relative to what Israel could and should have done.

Also, Israel has a substantial tourism industry, but it's eroding in light of the inflated cost of living. For Israelis, a trip to the US or Europe would often be cheaper than a local vacation. This is an opportunity to make the Golan a low cost tourism option.

In the coming decades will the Golan Heights be the cause of a major issue with Syria

If it will, it will only be a facade. Syria does not really gain anything from a conflict with Israel. To the contrary, it has much to lose. And the more Syria grows stronger, the more it stands to lose. That's why Israel and Syria maintained the quiet since the 80's.
Israel's control of the Golan heights will only work to discourage Syria from a war.
Another factor would be Russia. Now de-facto controlling much of the decision-making in Syria via indirect influence, Russia would be a limiting factor in any Syrian ambition for adventures to the south.

If Assad had been toppled and replaced by the Western and Gulf Arabs Syrian 'moderates' [who actually largely weren't moderate]; would it had had any effect on the Golan Heights?

With so much opposition from the armed forces, politicians from most of the spectrum, and the people, doing so would be a political suicide for an Israeli PM. The mere fact a ruler can be toppled is another strong argument why concessions for peace are a bad idea.

 

[STURM]

formally the 1948 war was a joint invasion into Israe

No doubt. It was a grave threat and Israel prevailed. On paper it was a "joint" invasion but in reality the Arabs who planned to destroy Israel were unprepared. They had the minimal of training and were uncoordinated.

It's not about a grand strategy. Israel does not need to establish cities there to hold it

You're in a much better position to comment on this then I"ll ever be. I merely pointed out that the practice of holding on to occupied territory and tsking steps to cement its hold on the territory and imptoving its position tgere has been carrird out by a long list of countries and empires for centuries.

IIRC conquest by war is perfectly legal as long as it is done in self defense.

Taking territory in times of conflict is certainly not illegal per see but holding on to territory in total violation of international law is [irrespective of any legitinate reasons] and so is buildng settlements on land one doesn't own.

The civil war was the final proof that Assad cannot be trusted with any territory with or without peace, so any future peace deal will exclude the Golan
In what way

Sorry but in what way does it show that Assad can't be trusted? It's not as if the civil war led to Israel finally understanding Bashir's character. It has long understood what makes the Assads tick and if conditions were right, would have in the past come to an agreement with him. Unless I'm mistaken Israel's issue with the civil war was not so much that Assad was a brutal dictator killing his people but the fact he invited the Iranians and other elements in.

There was a peace process in which Israel offered to give Syria the Golan, but both Assads have refused. To them, keeping the conflict alive to maintain support

First of all apart from severing ties with Iran we don't know what else Israel demanded and on a strategic level severing ties with Iran was not an option for Assad the elder.

Israel was always comfortable with Assad in power because it knew what to expect and it knew that Assad's priority was regime survival. If Bashir had fallen this would have led to uncertainty because Israel would not know what to expect Syria's new rulers.

This is an opportunity to make the Golan a low cost tourism option

My former employer's family used to do fund raising. As a kid, him and his family visited the occupied Sinai shortly before it was handed back to Egypt.

Russia would be a limiting factor in any Syrian ambition for adventures to the south.Russia would be a limiting factor in any Syrian ambition for adventures to the south.

Syria since the 1970's has had no desire for open conflict with Israel. It's goal has been regime survival and watching out for its interests in certain areas. Security wise it's main concern was actually fellow Arab states.

Israel's control of the Golan heights will only work to discourage Syria from a war

In theory maybe but how does one discourage a country from war when that country for the past few decades was not interested in war? Also, seen from another petspective Israel's continued occupation of the Golan ensures that there will always be tensions between Syria and Israel. Syria can also point out that Israeli troops on the Golan consitute a threat.

On the basis that Israel was more than willing to hand back most of the Golan if Assad the elder agreed to some conditions, then there's nothing to say that Israel eill not be ready to do the same at some point in the future if Syria agreed to Israeli terms. Unlessof course Israel has already decided - for whatever reason - that will never hand back the Golan, not even a square metre.

Something I'm curious about, does the refusal to hand back the Golan also has something to do with water?

 

[swerve]

IIRC conquest by war is perfectly legal as long as it is done in self defense. Syria used the Golan even before that to bombard Israeli cities (altitude advantage for artillery), and formally the 1948 war was a joint invasion into Israel.
Syria basically legally forfeited exclusive rights when it started a war it couldn't finish.
....

But the residents of a territory have rights, & they include the right not to be dispossessed. Individuals & families are not a government, particularly when that government is a dictatorship.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Taking territory in times of conflict is certainly not illegal per see but holding on to territory in total violation of international law is [irrespective of any legitinate reasons] and so is buildng settlements on land one doesn't own.

I think you're saying contradictory things. Taking territory in times of conflict is legal, but holding on to it is illegal?
Where exactly is this boundary? Do international treaties demand the victor forfeits all gained territory despite his self defense?

Sorry but in what way does it show that Assad can't be trusted? It's not as if the civil war led to Israel finally understanding Bashir's character. It has long understood what makes the Assads tick and if conditions were right, would have in the past come to an agreement with him. Unless I'm mistaken Israel's issue with the civil war was not so much that Assad was a brutal dictator killing his people but the fact he invited the Iranians and other elements in.

It shows that Assad cannot maintain his country stable enough. And in any instability, any piece of territory can easily be taken by anyone. Had the Golan been in Syrian hands, it could become a home for anyone, be it Al Nusra, ISIS, FSA, IRGC, SAA, etc. Some of these are more local in their operations and would steer away from attacking a country like Israel, and others would very much be tempted to do so.

Israel was always comfortable with Assad in power because it knew what to expect and it knew that Assad's priority was regime survival. If Bashir had fallen this would have led to uncertainty because Israel would not know what to expect Syria's new rulers

Hence Israel's no-intervention policy in Syria except against immediate threats that are usually foreign actors.

In theory maybe but how does one discourage a country from war when that country for the past few decades was not interested in war? Also, seen from another petspective Israel's continued occupation of the Golan ensures that there will always be tensions between Syria and Israel. Syria can also point out that Israeli troops on the Golan consitute a threat.

Then I don't understand. You asked if a future war could erupt, but then assure me it's not in Syria's interest. The Golan is very much un-important for Syria. Its only use is a high ground against Israel, i.e useful in a war. I argue Syria will have a much lower chance of initiating a conflict with Israel when it's not in control of the Golan.

On the basis that Israel was more than willing to hand back most of the Golan if Assad the elder agreed to some conditions, then there's nothing to say that Israel eill not be ready to do the same at some point in the future if Syria agreed to Israeli terms. Unlessof course Israel has already decided - for whatever reason - that will never hand back the Golan, not even a square metre.

The decision to never hand back the Golan was made a few years ago. I believe it went public in 2019 but not sure. There is no reason to give up the Golan today unless Syria is ready to make some huge concessions that Israel can't get by itself.
Because it seems right now that Israel's fairly successful in driving Iran out of Syria. Russia's even helping achieve this goal.

But the residents of a territory have rights, & they include the right not to be dispossessed. Individuals & families are not a government, particularly when that government is a dictatorship.

I believe they were given the option to relocate to Syria, after which Syria would have the responsibility of compensating them.
Today they are mostly citizens of Israel (some refused). Their rights were not taken away. If anything, they were given an opportunity to live much better lives than Syrians, with physical safety, economical safety, and political freedom.

Something I'm curious about, does the refusal to hand back the Golan also has something to do with water?

Not really. Syria could in theory still cut water to Israel by building a dam in the Baniyas, but that dam would be significantly more expensive and time consuming than a simple bombing Israel can do, again.

 

[STURM]

I think you're saying contradictory things. Taking territory in times of conflict is legal, but holding on to it is illegal?

In what way is it contradictory? I pointed that land taken during times of conflict may not illegal per see [depending on the circumstances] but that Israel's continued occupation of the Golan [for whatever reason] is in direct contravention of UN Resolution 242 and that Israel is building settlements on land it does not legally own - land it continues to occupy in violation of a UN Resolution. Note, I did not question the security aspects behind Israel's decision to continue occupying the Golan.

The boundary or rather the distinction I made was clear.

You asked if a future war could erupt, but then assure me it's not in Syria's interest

This is what I said in my first post - "In the coming decades will the Golan Heights be the cause of a major issue with Syria"

This was in my second post -"Also, seen from another petspective Israel's continued occupation of the Golan ensures that there will always be tensions between Syria and Israel"

I also don't have to assure you of anything. Under the Assad's Syria's priority was regime survival and dealing with challenges from other Arab states. Going to war with Israel was not a priority for the reason that the Assads knew they would lose and a defeat might endanger their regime.

Because it seems right now that Israel's fairly successful in driving Iran out of Syria

It may not be there in a way it would like due to Israeli actions but Iran is still there. Also, compared to the past the Syrians have a lesser need for an extensive Iranian presence.

 

[Feanor]

I believe they were given the option to relocate to Syria, after which Syria would have the responsibility of compensating them.
Today they are mostly citizens of Israel (some refused). Their rights were not taken away. If anything, they were given an opportunity to live much better lives than Syrians, with physical safety, economical safety, and political freedom.

Their right to self-determination was taken away. Simply giving them a choice to leave their home and go somewhere else, or live under a foreign power isn't exactly all that great. Israel should have conducted a referendum when they decided they're going to keep the Golan heights.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In what way is it contradictory? I pointed that land taken during times of conflict may not illegal per see [depending on the circumstances] but that Israel's continued occupation of the Golan [for whatever reason] is in direct contravention of UN Resolution 242 and that Israel is building settlements on land it does not legally own - land it continues to occupy in violation of a UN Resolution. Note, I did not question the security aspects behind Israel's decision to continue occupying the Golan.

Is it illegal though? I personally couldn't read the wall of text that is the entire resolution, but considering it's related to Israel and its peace processes, they made a short summary:

https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/un%20security%20council%20resolution%20242.aspx

In it, the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) does not comment on it, which is a sign for acceptance of the resolution in the current day.
Israel, of course, also accepted it in 1967, so no change of policy regarding it was made. At least, until a few years ago when the government went public about no withdrawal.
However, we see the demand for a withdrawal first lacks any timetable, meaning this call for withdrawal is merely symbolic, and second we see it's supposed to follow a peace treaty in which this would be Israel's part (or part of said part).

Since then we've seen efforts by Israel to have peace, and even dialogue. But it was fruitless.
Israel has made peace with a good deal of countries - but Arab states are neither known for taking an initiative to promote peace (between them and Israel, and between themselves), nor are they particularly free and democratic and willing to care for their people enough to have peace.

So legally speaking, Israel's case is pretty solid.

It may not be there in a way it would like due to Israeli actions but Iran is still there. Also, compared to the past the Syrians have a lesser need for an extensive Iranian presence.

That's not a bad thing. Israel can handle Iran's presence on its own and does not need to have Assad banish them (even his own efforts may not necessarily yield much gain and there are already areas in which Iranian forces are not allowed. Strategically, some Iranian presence may be beneficial to keep dealing economical blows to them. A single missile and a sortie are a small price to pay to intercept a weapons delivery after so much effort was spent on it.

Their right to self-determination was taken away. Simply giving them a choice to leave their home and go somewhere else, or live under a foreign power isn't exactly all that great.

It sucks, but they did have the right to self determination. They could determine whether they move back to Syria to a new home, or stay as citizens of Israel. I'm not aware of anyone choosing to move to Syria, and the majority there have also rejected any exemption from the military despite an automatic exemption for Arabs.
Israeli citizens who live on the borders are also choosing to live in places of high danger. Israel may displace people temporarily during wars in their home countries, for their safety and for smooth operation, but these Israeli citizens are living there knowing they're going to take the most rockets and mortars, and that this fire is directed at them and not the army or strategic sites.

Israel has also evicted a fairly high number of its own citizens from the Gaza area and illegal settlements in the West Bank. Some are even uprooted every few months. But they are all offered a very generous compensation.

There are simply no alternatives here, and I really don't see what a referendum would do. A referendum means the majority decides and the minority deals with it. Here it's every individual's decision.
What would the referendum even be about and how would it solve things?

 

[Feanor]

It sucks, but they did have the right to self determination. They could determine whether they move back to Syria to a new home, or stay as citizens of Israel. I'm not aware of anyone choosing to move to Syria, and the majority there have also rejected any exemption from the military despite an automatic exemption for Arabs.

The right of self-determination does not involve Israel getting to frame the question. It refers to people being able to choose their own destiny, and that includes the status of the land or territory on which the reside. Giving them the option of either expulsion from their homeland or acquiescence to an occupation regime is not self-determination. If the Arab nations occupy Israel and offer Israelis the option of moving back to whichever European countries their ancestors (or they themselves) came from or staying under an Islamic government, that would also qualify as self-determination?

There are simply no alternatives here, and I really don't see what a referendum would do. A referendum means the majority decides and the minority deals with it. Here it's every individual's decision.
What would the referendum even be about and how would it solve things?

A referendum would give the majority of the population the option to choose the political future of their homeland. It doesn't deprive the individuals of their decision to either stay in Israel or move back to Syria. It doesn't take away the individuals decision. And it would give the majority a chance to decide their own fate as a collective, as a group, without taking anything away from them. In principle, in a democracy, this is how it should work. Majority rules, but minority rights are protected and respected.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

If the Arab nations occupy Israel and offer Israelis the option of moving back to whichever European countries their ancestors (or they themselves) came from or staying under an Islamic government, that would also qualify as self-determination?

Out of every 100 Jews living in muslim-majority countries, 98 have either left due to persecution, or were expelled. They have used their right to self determination to move to whichever country they like, including over 700,000 of them to Israel, where they immediately became citizens.

The people of the Golan cannot however decide by themselves that it is a Syrian territory. That's not how this works. Syria has forfeited its right to that land in a war of aggression. In that case, Syria is the one responsible for disposessing its citizens.

A referendum would give the majority of the population the option to choose the political future of their homeland. It doesn't deprive the individuals of their decision to either stay in Israel or move back to Syria. It doesn't take away the individuals decision. And it would give the majority a chance to decide their own fate as a collective, as a group, without taking anything away from them. In principle, in a democracy, this is how it should work. Majority rules, but minority rights are protected and respected.

So they'd choose to form the independent nation of the Golan, named Golanistan. And then what? A people cannot vote to gain independence in a land against the wishes of its legal owner.

 

[STURM]

So legally speaking, Israel's case is pretty solid.

To you maybe but in actual reality Israel's continued occupation of land it does not own is in clear and total violation of UN Resolution 242. Its building of settlements on some of these lands [yes you have given the context and reasons]; which it does not own; is a violation of international law and is seen as ''illegal''.

Yes its case is ''solid'' but only because it has the military might; it enjoys the near unconditional support of Uncle Sam and the Arabs are highly divided.

Since then we've seen efforts by Israel to have peace, and even dialogue. But it was fruitless.

It takes 2 hands to clap and all previous efforts at peace which failed were not solely the fault of the Arabs..... You're making it sound as if all Israel has ever wanted is peace but peace was always elusive because of the fault of the Arabs; not true. Both sides share the blame.

It would make understanding the Middle East a a whole lot simpler to understand if we can really say with certainty that one side has a monopoly for all or most of what has gone wrong but we can't .......

but Arab states are neither known for taking an initiative to promote peace

Not true.... In 2002; Israel rejected a peace plan which was pushed by Saudi and was agreed upon by the vast majority of Arab states. Sure, Israel had reasons for this; same reasons the Arabs rejected previous plans but this was an Arab initiative which was presented to Israel. It's not as if it's Israel and Israel alone which always takes the initiative to promote peace ........

Israel has made peace with a good deal of countries - but Arab states are neither known for taking an initiative to promote peace (between them and Israel, and between themselves), nor are they particularly free and democratic and willing to care for their people enough to have peace.

The fact that they are not democratic is not an issue; the followed a plan which was pushed by Trump and it was in their interest to accept the plan. If
they were democratic a number of them would probably have not signed the Abraham Accords because of the backlash or opposition from members of their public; not because of hatred for Israel but because of solidarity with the Palestinians.

That's not how this works. Syria has forfeited its right to that land in a war of aggression. In that case, Syria is the one responsible for disposessing its citizens.

The issue is not who started the war [on that basis Israel struck first in 1967...] but the fact that the Golan does not belong to Israel [no matter how many settlements are build and whatever else it does] and that under UN Resolution 242 Israel was required to withdraw from the Golan. Since when do states legally forfeit the right to sovereign territory they lose in war [even if it was a 'war of aggression''?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

To you maybe but in actual reality Israel's continued occupation of land it does not own is in clear and total violation of UN Resolution 242. Its building of settlements on some of these lands [yes you have given the context and reasons]; which it does not own; is a violation of international law and is seen as ''illegal''.

A return of the Golan to Syria is only required per the resolution if a peace agreement exists, but it doesn't exist. It does not demand a return otherwise.
The issue of settlers and their status after withdrawal has a precedent, and Israel's policy is firm on that, so there is no issue there.
The project includes the creation of two small towns with 2,000 residents each, but the vast majority of that money goes to cope with the growth of the local Druze population.

Yes its case is ''solid'' but only because it has the military might; it enjoys the near unconditional support of Uncle Sam and the Arabs are highly divided.

If military might was ever the dominant factor, Israel would never negotiate to return the Golan, or the Sinai. Especially the West Bank.

It takes 2 hands to clap and all previous efforts at peace which failed were not solely the fault of the Arabs..... You're making it sound as if all Israel has ever wanted is peace but peace was always elusive because of the fault of the Arabs; not true. Both sides share the blame.

Drawing an equivalence here is wrong, because to solve things the first thing to understand is the balance.
Israel was ready in principle to return the Golan. Syria showed no initiative on the matter.
If we look at past peace processes, including unsuccessful ones, we can see that Israel has 2 very contradictory factors:
1. It is always the stronger (militarily and otherwise) party, at least by a significant amount.
2. It does most of the concessions.

What did Israel get with the Egyptians other than a verbal promise of peace? And was the energy-rich and ripe for development Sinai worth it?
What would Israel get from the Palestinians other than a much more fragile promise of peace? And is withdrawing from half of Jerusalem and the entire West Bank worth it?

Not true.... In 2002; Israel rejected a peace plan which was pushed by Saudi and was agreed upon by the vast majority of Arab states. Sure, Israel had reasons for this; same reasons the Arabs rejected previous plans but this was an Arab initiative which was presented to Israel. It's not as if it's Israel and Israel alone which always takes the initiative to promote peace ........

The plan of 2002 was not something Israel can accept or reject. It can condemn or praise. And that is because the 2002 plan was not a call for dialogue directly between the Arab League and Israel, but a promise of reward if Israel succeeds in scoring peace with the Palestinians.
But half a dozen proposals rejected by the PA later, we're still far away from that.
The condition is peace with Palestinians, and as long as it doesn't happen, the plan doesn't materialize.
So how exactly is this a peace initiative?

The fact that they are not democratic is not an issue; the followed a plan which was pushed by Trump and it was in their interest to accept the plan. If
they were democratic a number of them would probably have not signed the Abraham Accords because of the backlash or opposition from members of their public; not because of hatred for Israel but because of solidarity with the Palestinians.

When I said they are not democratic and free and caring for their people, I was not talking about formal democracies which exist in abundance. I am talking about true democracies, which do not stop at becoming democratic, but go further to progress culturally like the US, European states, Israel, Australia, and other like minded countries elsewhere.

The point is they'd throw their people under a bus if it meant the ruler can stay in power until he's dead. Iran is also democratic, yet they had no problem killing 1,500 people just for protesting.

The issue is not who started the war [on that basis Israel struck first in 1967...]

Striking first militarily is irrelevant because there is an abundance of military actions that can be done prior. The most flagrant military action against Israel before the war was the closing of the straits of Tiran for all Israeli trade.

and that under UN Resolution 242 Israel was required to withdraw from the Golan

If there is peace, which there isn't. And Syria is not required by any law to agree to, or pursue peace. Hence until that happens Israel is not obligated to do anything.

Since when do states legally forfeit the right to sovereign territory they lose in war [even if it was a 'war of aggression''?

A country that fights a war of aggression is not entitled to any form of compensation if it loses. But a precedent does exist for exacting a price from such countries in the aftermath.

Resolution 242 was voted for. It could have been voted against. And if that had happened, would there be any obligation to return the land under any circumstance?
No. The answer is no. A decade later in 1979 Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt under an agreement, not in a vacuum.

 

[STURM]

If military might was ever the dominant factor, Israel would never negotiate to return the Golan, or the Sinai. Especially the West Bank.

By your line of reasoning Israel would never have returned the Sinai. It did because of the benefits it achieved - losing the Sinai as a buffer zone was a penalty worth incuring.

Likewise, just as it was ready to do years ago, in the future if Israel can secure the guarantees and conditions it wants, with wjoever rules Syria, it's not inconceiveble that Israel might return the Golan or at least parts of it in the future.

Israel was ready in principle to return the Golan. Syria showed no initiative on the matter

Israel was ready to return "parts" of the Golan "if" Syria agreed to certain denands.

A country that fights a war of aggression is not entitled to any form of compensation if it loses

Israel is not holding on to the Golan because Syria fought "a war of aggression" - if you want to go into the fine print, the Arabs were about to attack but Israel struck first. Also, I'm no legal expert but since when it is a legtimate right for anyone to hold on land it does not own and build settlements on land it does not own simply on the basis that the land was acquired during a war.

But half a dozen proposals rejected by the PA later, we're still far away from that for that.

And there were reasons for that. Just like how Israel has rejected some demands, the Arabs - naturally - have done the same. Unless of course one wants to adopt the false and simplistic narrative that it's the Arabs and the Arabs alone who are responsible. Irrespective of the fact that the Saudi led peace proposal went nowhere, it was a genuine attempt to ensure peace, resolve the longstanding Palestnian issue and normalise relations with Israel. It was not intended from the onset to fail. For the Israelis perhaps there was no immediate urgency for a peace deal given the geo poltical situation at that time.

What did Israel get with the Egyptians other than a verbal promise of peace?

I'll tell you what Israel got in totality. Apart from knowing its flank with Egyot was secure, it became the largest recipient of U.S.aid, its ties with Uncle Sam were further cemented and the agreement led to deep divisions in an Arab world which was already not united. Assad who at that time was seen as Israel's main threat was also isolated.

The plan of 2002 was not something Israel can accept or reject

That is your opinion. I mentioned the 2002 proposal because of your claim that it has only been Israel who shows the initiative for peace.

The point is they'd throw their people under a bus if it meant the ruler can stay in power until he's dead. Iran is also democratic, yet they had no problem killing 1,500 people just for protesting

The point is we were not debating the merits of democracy over a dictatorship. The point I was making is that some countries being undemocratic was not an obstacle on Israel becoming new chums with them and if some countries were indeed democratic public opinion would have prevented them signing the Abraham Accords.

And is withdrawing from half of Jerusalem and the entire West Bank worth it?

Depends on who you ask and whether the price is worth paying. In the long run Israel can have peace or it can have land but it simply can't have both, irrspective of what counter arguements are made.
By holding on to land it doesn't legally own in clear contravention of international law, peace will remain elusive and 3 decades from now, there will still be strife and suffering.

And when I mention peace, I don't mean the superficial PR exercise which led to various Arab states making peace, not because they actually wanted to but because amongst other things it further ingratiated them with Uncle Sam and strenghtened their hand against Iran.

Striking first militarily is irrelevant

It is not irrelavent. Israel would still have won had it not striked first but striking first gave it a tremendous advantage.

The plan of 2002 was not something Israel can accept or reject

Nonetheless it was a plan presented by the Arabs and is contrary to your claim that it's only Israel which makes attempts for peace.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

By your line of reasoning Israel would never have returned the Sinai. It did because of the benefits it achieved - losing the Sinai as a buffer zone was a penalty worth incuring.

Likewise, just as it was ready to do years ago, in the future if Israel can secure the guarantees and conditions it wants, with wjoever rules Syria, it's not inconceiveble that Israel might return the Golan or at least parts of it in the future.

No that's actually the very opposite of my line of reasoning. I am saying the evidence shows clearly that Israel is NOT negotiating out of a position of strength, despite being much stronger than its opponents.

So IF Israel was negotiating with Egypt out of strength, it would not have given up the Sinai and demanded peace as-is, maybe even demand some concessions from Egypt.
But it didn't. And that's my point. Israel is negotiating with the willingness to make concessions and in turn not demanding much other than just peace, which none sane would do.

In Egypt's case, Israel didn't have any benefits other than a promise of peace. Egypt got all the benefits - it has the Sinai and all its economical assets, and American support not long before its longtime sponsor collapsed.

Israel was ready to return "parts" of the Golan "if" Syria agreed to certain denands.

Which are?

Israel is not holding on to the Golan because Syria fought "a war of aggression" - if you want to go into the fine print, the Arabs were about to attack but Israel struck first. Also, I'm no legal expert but since when it is a legtimate right for anyone to hold on land it does not own and build settlements on land it does not own simply on the basis that the land was acquired during a war.

Laws typically work by forbidding a certain action, not permitting it. If there's a law that says it's forbidden, fine. But I haven't seen such thing.
By definition every piece of territory in the world is occupied, and there are many territories worldwide in dispute. Does it mean there are now places on earth where building and developing is strictly forbidden for eternity?
Because Resolution 242 means Israel may at some point have to withdraw, but it doesn't forbid it from using that territory until then.
We've talked earlier about the indigenous people in the Golan, primarily the Druze. Humans are dynamic, and so aren't their rights infringed if we tell them a potential future withdrawal prevents us from giving them the infrastructure they are entitled to?

The point I was making is that some countries being undemocratic was not an obstacle on Israel becoming new chums with them and if some countries were indeed democratic public opinion would have prevented them signing the Abraham Accords.

Yes it would. Because dictators do not give a shit about their people 99% of the time. Oppressive regimes are much less inclined to seek peace with others. The progressive west is a union of nations only united by progressive thought. The reason they do not fight against one another is because they understand it makes no sense to do so, and are peaceful. The wars are where dictators and oppressors are.

That is your opinion. I mentioned the 2002 proposal because of your claim that it has only been Israel who shows the initiative for peace.

No, that's literally the terms. Saudi Arabia came up with the initiative but it conditioned it entirely on Israeli peace with the Palestinians. Israel tried to convince Saudi Arabia to separate the initiative from the Palestinian issue, but it has so far refused to do so.

And there were reasons for that. Just like how Israel has rejected some demands, the Arabs - naturally - have done the same. Unless of course one wants to adopt the false and simplistic narrative that it's the Arabs and the Arabs alone who are responsible.

The Arab nations usually work with the considerations of government survival and public opinion about peace. And that's because the Arab street hates Israel. But who was responsible for vilifying Israel and promoting war in their media in the first place?
In Israel there are no such considerations. Abbas even said so himself that Arafat should have accepted the deals he was offered, and regreted his own rejections.
Israel may have expressed displeasure with some terms, but ultimately never rejected a peace plan. Some it even preemptively accepted in a sign of trust for the US.
We see the pattern here again - Israel making little to no demands, and mostly concedes things, despite being infinitely more powerful, and capable of imposing any reality it wants.

Irrespective of the fact that the Saudi led peace proposal went nowhere, it was a genuine attempt to ensure peace, resolve the longstanding Palestnian issue and normalise relations with Israel. It was not intended from the onset to fail. For the Israelis perhaps there was no immediate urgency for a peace deal given the geo poltical situation at that time.

Abraham Accords were signed by countries who didn't believe the Saudi initiative was genuine and wanted progress.
For Israel both the Saudi initiative and peace with Palestine were urgent - the former would bring in a massive increase in revenue for Israel, and the latter would substantially reduce defense expenditure.

I'll tell you what Israel got in totality. Apart from knowing its flank with Egyot was secure, it became the largest recipient of U.S.aid, its ties with Uncle Sam were further cemented and the agreement led to deep divisions in an Arab world which was already not united. Assad who at that time was seen as Israel's main threat was also isolated.

Its flank that was now non existent because it gave up all its strategic depth?
You're describing the natural benefits of peace - obviously enemies will become weaker. But that peace was fragile, Egypt was no exception in the trend of regime overthrows and general regional instability.
The aid was an offset deal - it's not some huge benefit Israel has out of nowhere. The US made much of its hardware, which it also sold to Israel, accessible to the Arabs who were much richer than Israel, and in total gave them more aid than it did to Israel.

It is not irrelavent. Israel would still have won had it not striked first but striking first gave it a tremendous advantage.

I was talking about the fact that Israel attacking first did not make it an aggressor. It responded to the blockade imposed on it.

 

[Feanor]

Out of every 100 Jews living in muslim-majority countries, 98 have either left due to persecution, or were expelled. They have used their right to self determination to move to whichever country they like, including over 700,000 of them to Israel, where they immediately became citizens.

The people of the Golan cannot however decide by themselves that it is a Syrian territory. That's not how this works. Syria has forfeited its right to that land in a war of aggression. In that case, Syria is the one responsible for disposessing its citizens.

The Syrian government doesn't own the territory, the people of Syria do. And given that Syria is a dictatorship one might argue that the Syrian government isn't able to forfeit anything because it doesn't actually represent its people.

So they'd choose to form the independent nation of the Golan, named Golanistan. And then what? A people cannot vote to gain independence in a land against the wishes of its legal owner.

That's literally what self-determination means. It means the right of peoples not only as individuals but as a group to have control over their own fate. That includes the ability to form their own country if they so choose.

"The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[1][2] It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[3] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

I know Wikipedia isn't a great source in general, but it sure links to plenty of great sources including the UN charter, and the principle in this case is so simple and straightforward that there isn't much to argue about. If the people of the Golan Heights want to form their own state, Israel should allow them to do so.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The Syrian government doesn't own the territory, the people of Syria do. And given that Syria is a dictatorship one might argue that the Syrian government isn't able to forfeit anything because it doesn't actually represent its people.



That's literally what self-determination means. It means the right of peoples not only as individuals but as a group to have control over their own fate. That includes the ability to form their own country if they so choose.

"The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms.[1][2] It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[3] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

I know Wikipedia isn't a great source in general, but it sure links to plenty of great sources including the UN charter, and the principle in this case is so simple and straightforward that there isn't much to argue about. If the people of the Golan Heights want to form their own state, Israel should allow them to do so.

The law that enshrines the right to self determination as a basic human right, indeed says it is in every group of people to bind as a nation for whatever reason and to independently decide their status. But it does not talk about what happens when it comes in conflict with other people's right to self determination.
For that reason, you as a citizen of Russia (if you are), are entitled to the opinion that you can have your own state, or have Russia change in whatever direction you want. But you can't really have your own state. And how do you change bigger Russia to be what you want? Your vote.


So these people can vote in Israel. They can also vote in Syria. But when they want their own Golanistan, they can't have it because they're on already claimed and annexed land.

So again, they are entitled to the opinion, but not to actually having something that belongs to another sovereign entity.
The people of the Golan were given all the rights mandated by international norms.

 

[STURM]

Abraham Accords were signed by countries who didn't believe the Saudi initiative was genuine and wanted progress.

Is that actually a fact or sonething which you perceive to be a fact?

Some of the countries which signed the Abraham Accords were the very same countries which agreed to the 2002 proposal ... It was also signed because it further ingratiated themselves with Trump and it was also aimed at Iran ...

And that's because the Arab street hates Israel

You are generalising and asuming, from a solely Isreali perspective. It's not 1948 or 1967 anymore, the average Arab on the street does not hate Israel or has visions of laying siege to Haifa or Tel Aviv. They are digusted at Israeli policies with regards to the Palestinians and are disgusted with the fact that their government's are unable or unwilling to try to change things. They also have other things to focus on instead of channeling their energy towards hsting Israel.

Since the 1990's I've had the opportunity to ask nurnerous Arabs of various nationalities and from various walks of life. Talks of "we hate Israel" were rare. Like I said, it's not 1948 or 1967 anymore.
.
The impression I got was that the average Arab understood Israel much better than vice versa.

Abbas even said so himself that Arafat should have accepted the deals he was offered, and regreted his own rejections

Right but there were also those in the Clinton Administration who later said the PLO was right to reject Oslo.

Which are?

We've gone throught this in a previous post. Israel, amongst other things, demanded Assad sever ties with Iran. For strategic reasons this was not possible, doing so would have weakened Syria.

So IF Israel was negotiating with Egypt out of strength, it would not have given up the Sinai and demanded peace as-is, maybe even demand some concessions from Egypt

Israel DID negotiate out of a position of strenght, it physically occupied the Sinai, it had military superiority, it had the backing of the U.S. and it knew that Egypt was desperate for economic aid and to recover the Sinai..

It was also under tremendous pressure from the U S. which stood to benefit in a major way [Camp David was a stroke of genius on the part of Kissinger] Don't make it sound as if Israel was negotiating from a position of weakness and was reluctant - it wasn't .....

Its flank that was now non existent because it gave up all its strategic depth

It had a flank - the border with Egypt - which it no longer had to worry about because having signed Camp David, Egypt was neutered. It was no longer the threat it previously was. ...

But who was responsible for vilifying Israel and promoting war in their media in the first place

Right, Israel can do no wrong. It's the Arabs and them alone responsible for everything which has gone wrong...

israel may have expressed displeasure with some terms, but ultimately never rejected a peace plan

It included terms and conditions which it knew the Arabs could never accept. A cynic could say that at times, Israel was not really bothered if the peace plans suceeded ...

I was talking about the fact that Israel attacking first did not make it an aggressor

Did I say Israel was the aggressor? I did say or imply that Israel was justified in strking first. What I disagreed with was your claim that Syria forfeited all rights because it launched a "war of aggression" which it technically didn't...

Saudi Arabia came up with the initiative but it conditioned it entirely on Israeli peace with the Palestinians
so.

Of course it would. The Palestinian issue is something which continues to reasonate with the majority of Arabs - despite Israel's efforts to make the issue go away. You won't need any reminding that for a period Israel's hope was that the Palestinians would leave in mass and be absorbed by Syria, Jordan and Lebanon - no Palestinian problem. Remember Golda Meir's statement about the Palestians and they not existing?

As the so call leader of the Arab world Saudi Arabia would naturally push a peace proposal centered on resolving the Palestnian issue.

To suggest that Saudi should not have linked the Palestinian issue to the peace proposal is to see things purely from a very narrow Israeli lens and is akin to someone saying that the Golan be vacated by Israel without factoring in the security aspects for Israel.

already claimed and annexed land

Mainly because they are on land which is internationally recognised as being the sovereign territory of the sovereign state of Syria. Also, the Golan is not "disputed" territory, it is "occupied".

 

[Feanor]

The law that enshrines the right to self determination as a basic human right, indeed says it is in every group of people to bind as a nation for whatever reason and to independently decide their status. But it does not talk about what happens when it comes in conflict with other people's right to self determination.

Whose right to self-determination does the population of the Golan's clash with? There was no significant Israeli population there at the time of occupation. This is where the settlement of the area by Israelis is deeply problematic.

For that reason, you as a citizen of Russia (if you are), are entitled to the opinion that you can have your own state, or have Russia change in whatever direction you want. But you can't really have your own state. And how do you change bigger Russia to be what you want? Your vote.

I can't have my own state as a citizen of Russia because the Russian government is an authoritarian oligarchy that won't allow it. This is hardly an example to follow. That having been said even so Russia held a referendum in Chechnya after the second war to at least nominally give the population a voice (a war that if you recall was started by a Chechen invasion of Dagestan).

So these people can vote in Israel. They can also vote in Syria. But when they want their own Golanistan, they can't have it because they're on already claimed and annexed land.

Correct. They can't have it because an illegitimate occupation government won't let them. Thus depriving them of their right to self-determination.

So again, they are entitled to the opinion, but not to actually having something that belongs to another sovereign entity.
The people of the Golan were given all the rights mandated by international norms.

They're entitled to their opinion, just not in a way that matters or frustrates those with power.

I don't want to take us too far down this rabbit hole, I don't believe I'll convince you, and certainly no amount of flexible wordplay will convince me. There is an internationally recognized right to self-determination. Your argument is that this principle is purely theoretical and does not offer any real path to sovereignty or independence, despite this literally being part of the definition of the concept. Since I reject your argument fundamentally I suggest we agree to disagree and move on.

Further discussion of this will bring in questions of Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia/Ossetia, fall of the Soviet Union, and creation of the US as a country. If you like we can continue this in off-topic, or in PMs.

 

[SolarWind]

It may seem that international law is not crystal clear when rights overlap. The Israeli right of self defense and Druze rights to self-determination may seem to overlap in this case. Normally within a state such contradictions are decided by a court, but in order for an international court to be able to have jurisdiction in such a case, it has to be recognized by all parties. So I am not sure if this discussion will really go anywhere.

Edit: Sorry, Feanor, didn't see your post in time.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Is that actually a fact or sonething which you perceive to be a fact?

Some of the countries which signed the Abraham Accords were the very same countries which agreed to the 2002 proposal ... It was also signed because it further ingratiated themselves with Trump and it was also aimed at Iran ...

Everything I write is my opinion.
Their agreement with the 2002 proposal is not relevant. The 2002 proposal was clear - Israel makes peace with the Palestinians (which still didn't happen), and in return the Arab League recognizes Israel as a Jewish state and makes peace with it.
The fact some countries have proceeded to do those things without the precondition of peace with Palestinians, is enough proof they disagreed with the notion of conditioning their own peace with Israel on the Palestinians, at least at the time of signing the Abraham Accords. 2002 policies are not equal to 2003 policies and so on.

Since the 1990's I've had the opportunity to ask nurnerous Arabs of various nationalities and from various walks of life. Talks of "we hate Israel" were rare. Like I said, it's not 1948 or 1967 anymore.
.
The impression I got was that the average Arab understood Israel much better than vice versa.

Did you ask Arabs who lived in Arab states, or did they live in the west?
And was it in person or over the internet?

Because if it's the former, then it's really self explanatory. If it's the latter, then that's a comfortable facade. For example on sites like Reddit or Twitter you can see plenty of Arab support for normalization or peace (albeit still a minority among internet dwellers). However actual polls reveal that they are really not representative of the Arab street, and that's because those people are using western platforms, interacting with western people, and have an inherent better connection with the west and worse connection with their own people than the average Arab.

You are generalising and asuming, from a solely Isreali perspective. It's not 1948 or 1967 anymore, the average Arab on the street does not hate Israel or has visions of laying siege to Haifa or Tel Aviv. They are digusted at Israeli policies with regards to the Palestinians and are disgusted with the fact that their government's are unable or unwilling to try to change things. They also have other things to focus on instead of channeling their energy towards hsting Israel.

I have my own interactions with Arabs. You and I sampled quite different things then.
And of course they'll be "disgusted by Israeli policy towards Palestinians". There is a deep rooted hatred towards Israel and Jews across the entire Arab world. It is only natural they side with Palestine especially when their own governments, who never missed a chance to throw Palestinans under the bus, are blasting anti-Israeli propaganda on the TV, radio, and every other imaginable platform.

Right but there were also those in the Clinton Administration who later said the PLO was right to reject Oslo.

What's the point? I want your opinion. Not staff in a long gone administration.

We've gone throught this in a previous post. Israel, amongst other things, demanded Assad sever ties with Iran. For strategic reasons this was not possible, doing so would have weakened Syria.

Iran is not just another state in the region. It has its armed forces operating in just about every country in the region. In Lebanon it's a full blown occupation. In Syria it's a significant presence which at times was enough to let them attack Israel directly.
If Assad signed a peace treaty with Israel, it would mean he pledges there would be no war between the two countries. And if Iran decides to attack Israel from Syria, it would effectively be a declaration of war by Syria against Israel.
Iran makes the peace far too fragile to believe it would last long.
So how could you believe this was an unreasonable demand? It was essentially a demand for peace and that's it.

Israel DID negotiate out of a position of strenght, it physically occupied the Sinai, it had military superiority, it had the backing of the U.S. and it knew that Egypt was desperate for economic aid and to recover the Sinai..

It was also under tremendous pressure from the U S. which stood to benefit in a major way [Camp David was a stroke of genius on the part of Kissinger] Don't make it sound as if Israel was negotiating from a position of weakness and was reluctant - it wasn't .....

You're still not getting it. Yes, it was stronger. No, it did not negotiate like a stronger party. A stronger party makes demands but no concessions. Equals make equal demands and concessions. Israel made more concessions than demands.

Right, Israel can do no wrong. It's the Arabs and them alone responsible for everything which has gone wrong...

Alright. Then what's your take? An equal blame and equal responsibility? We're going to equate the US to North Korea next? UK to China? France to Venezuela? Norway to Mauritania?

Surely a country that extents a hand for peace to all neighbors and adopted the western progressive lifestyle, and thrives in peace and trade and diplomacy, is equal to dictatorships that thrive in war and oppression of their people.

It included terms and conditions which it knew the Arabs could never accept. A cynic could say that at times, Israel was not really bothered if the peace plans suceeded ...

Such as? What terms could they not accept? The Palestinians are oppressed by both of their regimes, are living in poverty, the best they can do politically to represent them are literal terrorist organizations, their little money and resources were plundered for a pointless war effort, more support in empty gestures from Europe than the Arab countries around them and in which they live, and got walled off by their only shot at economical prosperity because of too many terror attacks.

They have nothing to offer, yet Israel is ready to make huge concessions to facilitate a state for them and solve at least some of their seemingly endless problems. If at their position they believe they're at liberty to reject peace because of bad demands, well then that's just too bad for them, because they're throwing their future away.

To suggest that Saudi should not have linked the Palestinian issue to the peace proposal is to see things purely from a very narrow Israeli lens and is akin to someone saying that the Golan be vacated by Israel without factoring in the security aspects for Israel

It doesn't have to be Israeli lens. Saudi Arabia and the entire Arab world would benefit greatly from peace with Israel.

Mainly because they are on land which is internationally recognised as being the sovereign territory of the sovereign state of Syria. Also, the Golan is not "disputed" territory, it is "occupied".

Recognition is arbitary. Most of the world doesn't recognize Taiwan.

Whose right to self-determination does the population of the Golan's clash with? There was no significant Israeli population there at the time of occupation. This is where the settlement of the area by Israelis is deeply problematic

Israeli. It doesn't matter how many people there are. The territory is annexed by Israel, and so they are in clash with Israeli citizens. They do however have the right to form parties, be elected, and advocate their opinions. In fact, there are now Arab MKs and there were Arab ministers in the government. Not sure if there is one today.

Contrary to your belief, there was deep engagement between the Israeli government and the local Golani communities and they got their demands. And they are about as pro-Israeli as they can get.
Some who remain loyal to Syria (on paper at least), have demanded to keep their Syrian citizenship and they got it. But they did not request to relocate to Syria or anywhere else.
You may not be aware, but in Israel there exists the concept of autonomy, and different groups have a high range of autonomy in Israel. Chief among them are Bedouins.

Correct. They can't have it because an illegitimate occupation government won't let them. Thus depriving them of their right to self-determination.

The definition of the right to self determination fully applies to these people. They vote, get voted for, have significant presence in politics. They expressed their demands and got them.
Way to go about Israel somehow being illegitimate. I guess my existence is illegitimate, and pretty much the entire world.

There is an internationally recognized right to self-determination. Your argument is that this principle is purely theoretical and does not offer any real path to sovereignty or independence, despite this literally being part of the definition of the concept.

No, my argument is that this right manifests in 2 separate ways - for citizens of a state it means elections and voting. For stateless people it means striving for statehood or integration into another state/people. But it's about pursuing a goal, not getting a goal! They can form a state in theory, but in practice, there is no longer a single chunk of land on earth that isn't already claimed or part of some state, so then in practice it comes down to getting permission from the owner of the land.