Israel sole beneficiary of Iraq occupation

[Comadreja]

Syria's prime minister has claimed Israel is the sole beneficiary of
the US-led occupation of Iraq.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/54CD5182-1543-4509-BB36-A09C1CACC131.htm


Speaking at a joint Syrian-Iranian high committee on Monday, Muhammad Utri also claimed Tel Aviv had no interest in making peace with Palestinians.

"Israel, backed by the United States, is opposed to peace and remains a source of instability in the region.

"Israel is the only one who benefits from the US-British occupation of Iraq ... which has become a source of ongoing concern and is unacceptable."


The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.":Carl Schurz

[burythehatchet]

1. but...but...but richard perle said it was the CIA's fault

I'm so confused. What's going on here.?

[mobuto]

2. Of course

"Israel, backed by the United States, is opposed to peace and remains a source of instability in the region," the Syrian Prime Minister said in comments to reporters, neglecting to add that Syria itself is opposed to peace and remains a source of instability in the region.

In fact, Prime Minister Barak was forced from office after he staked his entire political career on peace with Damascus, only to have the door slammed firmly in his face.

Brilliant.

[tinnypriv]

4. Or, in the words of the Israeli right-wing:

Note, the right-wing:

<< The Israeli-Syrian dialogue since the Yom Kippur War is adorned with "missed" opportunities. A lengthy Hebrew bookshelf is full of evidence that Abba Eban was wrong in his claim that only the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace. The Jews can compete with them for the title of champion of missed opportunities....

...Ehud Barak had a chance, but recoiled in light of public opinion polls. The missed opportunity hurts. They all wanted to, yet none was bold enough to dare. >>

Incidentially, he adds:

<< Sharon does not want an agreement, neither with a powerful Syria/Damascus (nor with a weak one). >> ¹

This commentator is as hawkish as you like on many issues, in case you were wondering.

-----

1. Op-ed, Dan Margalit, 'Two fences for Jerusalem', Ma'ariv. Online: http://images.maariv.co.il/cache/ART638950.html

[mobuto]

6. What do you mean as hawkish as I?

I'm really not much of a hawk at all. I'm very much sympathetic to the Palestinians, I just support Israel's right to exist free of terror. It may just in the light of this forum that I'm perceived as a hawk. And that's odd.

As for Barak, you're totally wrong. He expended tremendous amounts of political capital getting permission from the Knesset to negotiate a peace with Syria. On that he staked his entire political career.

Al Assad effectively refused to negotiate.

That was the end fo Barak.

[tinnypriv]

7. Not what I said

I said "as hawkish as you like". i.e. I'm not quoting a leftist, so the source cannot be questioned. Hence, I see no need to respond to your comments justifying whether you are a hawk or not (not particularly relevant, and completely non-specific and contradictory to international law in any case).

As for Barak, I said nothing about him. I quoted a RW hawkish Israeli commentator's views on the matter, writing in a center/center-right daily. If you disagree with him, fair enough, though you could at least address what he says, rather than stating he is "wrong" (providing no evidence).

Note that is just one reference, hardly scratching the surface. For example:

"When Assad suggests peace, the government does something to torpedo any chance of a breakthrough" (David Fogel)

"Is Syria serious about a security-based arrangment with a territorial agreement? An unequivocal: yes! Is Israel? No!" (paraphrase, Shlomo Gazit, former head of military intelligence)

"Chaos and distress struck Israel when ... Syria changed direction overnight and asked for a renewal of peace talks." (Arieh Shinbel)

etc,.

Note that though these are all references to the current (desperate) attempts of the Israeli government to evade a political settlement with Syria, the record of Barak is not a great deal different (unsurprisingly, because the price of peace is unacceptable to almost all the Israeli political spectrum on this topic - can expand on that if you like).¹

-----

1. The price being withdrawal from the Golan Heights, as openly acknowledged by current PM Sharon (and anyone familiar with the subject). With regards to the "spectrum", one example of the narrow range of Israeli opinion on this matter is that the Golan Heights is included within Israel by the architects of the Geneva Accord ("far left" in current Israeli rhetoric).

[mobuto]

13. Not true at all

What Israel offered to al Assad was simply everything.

The entire Golan Heights, all the way to the Sea of Galilee. All Barak asked for was a tiny, sliver of land to the Galilee, in some places as little as 10 meters wide, so Barak could save face in front of domestic opposition.

In return for that tiny sliver, Barak promised Syria equivalent land elsewhere.

There can never be a better deal than that. That's everything anybody can ever offer and more.

And Syria refused even to negotiate.

But don't take my word on it. Take that noted friend of Israel's, Al Jazeera.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AAD9D2F8-2CEA-4DD0-BBAB-502CDE5C673A.htm

[tinnypriv]

19. Leaving aside

The fact that Al Jazeera's report is based on an Associated Press story (by the noted and excellent reporter Gavin Rabinowitz), and Israeli press articles (specifically one in Yediot Aharonot), it has precisely zero to do with what I said, even assuming the story by Yatom is fully accurate (debatable, given his previous comments on the Golan vis a vis Yitzhak Rabin, not to mention his illustrious past).

The reason for the lack of relevance is because I (accurately) said that the price of peace is full withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Israel has never offered that, and neither did Barak.

You can argue perhaps they shouldn't offer that, or the Syrians are monsters, or whatever, but everyone knows that full withdrawal for full peace is the deal, and will be the deal if one ever comes about. As I said, this is openly stated in Israel as a simple fact (by PM Sharon, intelligence experts, hawkish authors, others).

Incidentially, you should note that in this regard there are striking similarities between the withdrawal from the Sinai (s-el-Sheiek being a "deal-breaker"; Kinneret its counterpart this time around) and the mooted "withdrawal" from the Golan.

Moreover, I'd be interested in you directing me to where in that article it is stated that "Syria refused even to negotiate". If those are your words, fair enough, I can address them (given the voluminous literature on the topic), but they're not Al Jazeera's, or anyone familiar with the Golan story (nor should they be, given the facts).

[mobuto]

20. What does full withdrawal mean?

What kind of maximalist bullshit is this? If you're not willing to compromise ten meters, then the hell with you. Barak had to have something to save face, and if a tiny sliver of occupied land, out of the entire Golan and the Gallilee is all that he said he needed you and Al Assad were willing to doom another generation to war?

Over ten meters?

Give me a break. This is exactly the kind of mindless rigidity that's caused the situation in the first place. How myopic can anyone be?

You can argue perhaps they shouldn't offer that, or the Syrians are monsters, or whatever,

Don't put words in my mouth, buddy. I'm saying that the Syrians simply were not interested in peace and pretended they were. When given the opportunity of a lifetime they turned it down and damned another generation to bloodshed. Why? Because the al Assad folks have made a family business out of using Israel as a scapegoat for Syrians' woes. Peace with Israel means no scapegoat, and that's scary.

Moreover, I'd be interested in you directing me to where in that article it is stated that "Syria refused even to negotiate". If those are your words, fair enough, I can address them (given the voluminous literature on the topic), but they're not Al Jazeera's, or anyone familiar with the Golan story (nor should they be, given the facts).

They are my words. Syria refused to negotiate any solution that gave Israel even symbolic access to the Gallilee. That's idiocy. That's like Arafat saying that the Jews have no claim at all to the Temple Mount. If that's your negotiationg position, then you're not here to negotiate.

[tinnypriv]

21. Response

<< This is exactly the kind of mindless rigidity that's caused the situation in the first place. How myopic can anyone be? >>

To address the latter point: almost everyone, it seems. To quote an opponent of full withdrawal for full peace, it is "common belief" that:

"There is no chance of peace between Israel and Syria unless Israel retreats 'to the last grain of sand' as it did in Sinai." ¹

An accurate summary of standard opinion, repeated often in Israeli commentary.²

To address the former point: the "rigidity" is in terms of international law. Syria's right to sovereignty over the entire territory is indisputable. Perhaps some mutual arrangements to ensure demilitarisation of the border, stationing of a Mixed Armistice force (as in Egypt), peace agreements etc, could be arranged, though they would only be lawful in the context of the Golan being Syrian, up to the 1967 border. This is a fact, and no amount of rhetorical denunciation will make it otherwise.

As to the "cause" of the situation in the first place, that is quite complex. The main factor is of course Israeli aggression to conquer the heights, committed after a UN/US/USSR-brokered cease-fire came into effect during the war of 1967 (the theft taking place without the knowledge of the civilian government).³

Previous to that, Israeli encroachment and provocative actions designed to inflame the situation were largely responsible for Syrian-Israeli confrontation (80% of hostile "incidents", perhaps more, conceded in Israel).⁴

Given the above, it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that Syria's unwillingness to bargain back territory it owns to a state that has been responsible for aggression against it and numerous provocations is the sole reason that another generation is "doomed to war".

A different conclusion does follow from the available facts, namely that Israel is obligated to withdraw fully from the heights. Period. A peace treaty as a result would be a pre-condition incidentally, though not an unreasonable one in my opinion (and it seems the Syrian's may go further and normalise relations, a significant concession).

To sum up, if the former obligation is too much honesty, perhaps Israel can cede to the latter demand. Anything else would be a reward for aggression. If you disagree, you'd have to be prepared to see the underlying principles of that disagreement extended to Tiberias, Kuwait City etc. I hardly think you'd like the conclusions.

<< Don't put words in my mouth, buddy. I'm saying that the Syrians simply were not interested in peace and pretended they were. When given the opportunity of a lifetime they turned it down and damned another generation to bloodshed. Why? Because the al Assad folks have made a family business out of using Israel as a scapegoat for Syrians' woes. Peace with Israel means no scapegoat, and that's scary. >>

The only checkable fact you have in this paragraph is that the Syrians "turned down" an "opportunity of a lifetime". Given that you have not presented any evidence to support this statement (despite being asked), I can only conclude that an additional request for validation will only result in a repetition of the statement, sans evidence. I hardly see how that will advance the discussion (especially so since the one reference you gave refutes your own statement).

<< They are my words. >>

And you supplied this caveat: "don't take my word for it".

I took your advice, checked the document you gave, and commented on the fact it doesn't support your claim in the slightest. I'll conclude from your response that we are in agreement on this. To address your words (keeping in mind the lack of supporting evidence):

<< Syria refused to negotiate any solution that gave Israel even symbolic access to the Gallilee. >>

Or, in the proper historical context, the Syrians refused to "negotiate" away their own territory; territory taken by violence and held only by virtue that they have a gun visibly cocked in their direction.

<< That's idiocy. That's like Arafat saying that the Jews have no claim at all to the Temple Mount. If that's your negotiationg position, then you're not here to negotiate. >>

Since the analogy is ridiculous, I see no need to comment, but out of thoroughness I will explain the lack of parallel:

Israel has no sovereign claim to the territory of the Temple Mount, nor do "the Jews". It could even be said that perhaps the Palestinian Arabs don't either, though they could at least attempt an argument (perhaps a convincing one).

Of course the above has no bearing on the right of access, as enshrined in the relevant statues of law. The reason being that it is a completely different topic and totally irrelevant.

-----

1. Op-ed, Yosef Harif, Ma'ariv, 21 Jan 2004.

2. For one (minor) example, cf. David Fogel, op-ed, Ma'ariv, 6 Jan 2004:

"Finally there is someone else to annoy – the Syrians. So what if the Syrians want to return to the negotiation table? Perhaps it could, 'heaven forbid', bring peace. Just make sure we revert to type, and do something bloody-minded again, like build more settlements, plant more trees and open more kindergartens. And after there is another war and more bloodshed, only then will we return all the territories, as we returned everything to the Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese" (emphases added)

3. The aggression was conceded at the time, since Moshe Dayan admitted his plans were to "exploit" Israel's military advantage to capture the "maximal military lines", despite knowing that Syria was being instructed by Egypt to accept a cease-fire (which it did). Dayan, Quoted, Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall, p.248, and sources cited.

4. On Israel's "strategy of escalation on the Syrian front", see Avi Shlaim, ibid, p.235 and sources cited. See also Moshe Dayan's comments:

"I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarised area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was" (ibid, cited from Yediot Aharonot, 27 April 1997)

[sabbat hunter]

22. a compromise?

i saw a recent article that suggested an excellent compromise for the golan heights. In a treaty israel give offical ownership of the entire golan back to syria. however as part of the treaty, israel leases the land for 100 years, with payments given to syria.

that way syria can claim it got back all of the golan and israel claims it still is in the golan heights.


peace
david
:hippie:

[tinnypriv]

23. Yes

That idea actually dates back to the early 90's, and is a reasonable approximation of a non-justice based compromise solution. Whether it would be accepted by Syria or not, who knows.

FWIW, Labor was toying with it until Likud was re-elected (the Netenyahu election). How serious they were is an open question.

[Herschel]

3. Wonderful news

Any benefit to Israel is a positive for America.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

5. Uh . . .

"Any benefit to Israel is a positive for America."

How exactly is that true?

[Herschel]

8. Quite simply

Israel is our staunch ally, a beacon of democracy in their region.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fight_n_back]

15. then perhaps

you should do a little reading on the subject and then come back when you are interested in a real discussion.

[Blayde Starrfyre]

12. Try harder.

When I said explain how anything that benefits Israel benefits America, I actually meant explain it. I did not mean "copy and paste the standard answer."

[bemildred]

9. The assumption that there is some benefit to be had is a bit premature.

I don't see any reason to think that any of the principals will be
happy with the Iraq war in the long run. The only "winners" are
likely to be those who resolutely stayed out of it, and perhaps the
new state of Kurdistan, and the lately integrated provinces of
Iran and Syria that were once part of Iraq.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

10. the real beneficiary is...

Iran...

[dudeness]

14. holy shit!!

i thought them erakkis was going to benefit from this invasion?..holy dooley..that aint true?

[JasonDeter]

16. Everything is unacceptable to people like this Syrian character!

The only thing acceptable to them is the deaths of innocent Israeli's and innocent Palestinians. They never complain about arafat stealing billions of dollars from the poor Palestinians or the poverty he forces the Palestinian poor to suffer under. They complain too much about the wrong things. I'm glad Saddam is gone, to bad he didn't die like his two boys. He is no longer paying poor Palestinians to blow up innocent Israeli's. So did Israel benefit from the removal of Saddam from power? Yes. Do I care if Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or the other Arab nations of the ME like it? No. Do I hope we get the hell out of that godforsaken country fast and bring our kids home? Yes. <self edited>

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Assad's statement is false

Any benefit Israel received from the invasion is an illusion. There is some talk of cooperation between Israel and Iraq; however, that is based on the pronouncements of an Iraqi puppet government responsible to the US, not the Iraqi people. While it would benefit both Israel and Iraq if both nations cooperated, that is not likely to happen. Once power in Iraq is restored to a government responsible to the people, the freeze in Iraq-Israel relations will be restored with it. That will come about before Israel realizes any benefit from the present puppet government.

Otherwise, the invasion of Iraq did not prevent one suicide bombing in Israel.

The only real winners in the Iraq invasion were US transnational corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel. Even that is short term. They are there getting what they can while they can, before a real Iraqi government comes to power.

[Jim Sagle]

18. Very good summary. Except that there is one other benificiary - Al Qaeda .

The "war on terrorism" is much worse off than before.