No Golan Heights Pullout For Syria Peace: Netanyahu Aide

JERUSALEM — Israel will not withdraw from the entire Golan Heights in return for a peace deal with Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's top policy adviser said in an interview published Friday, rejecting Syria's key demand for an agreement.

The two countries could split the territory, suggested Uzi Arad, Netanyahu's national security adviser and the aide widely seen as closest to Netanyahu. But in the comments in the daily Haaretz newspaper, he said Israel must remain on the Golan Heights to a depth of several miles and cannot withdraw in full even in return for a peace agreement.

Israel captured the Golan Heights in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed the territory in 1981, a move that was never internationally recognized. Syria has always maintained that peace will be possible only if Israel withdraws entirely from the Heights.

Syrian forces used the strategic plateau to shell nearby Israeli communities before 1967, and Israel fears those communities will once again become vulnerable should the Heights be ceded. Israeli officials also argue that holding the area gives Israel early warning of Syrian military moves and a buffer zone in case of attack.

The area is also home to crucial water sources, a profitable Israeli winery, and Israeli settlements with about 18,000 residents. About 17,000 Druse Arabs loyal to Syria also live there.

At 485 square miles (1,250 square kilometers), the Heights are roughly one-third the size of the U.S. state of Rhode Island.

Indirect peace talks mediated by Turkey between representatives of Syrian President Bashar Assad and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have not been renewed under Netanyahu, who replaced Olmert in April. Direct talks between Israel and Syria broke down in 2000.

Netanyahu has said repeatedly that Israel would not cede the Golan to Syria.

Story continues below

advertisement

Israel needs to retain part of the Golan "for strategic, military and settlement reasons. For water, landscape and wine," said Arad. He nonetheless called on the Syrians to resume peace talks with Israel with no preconditions but "with each side aware of the other's position."

Like the contacts with Syria, talks between Israel and the Palestinians have also been frozen since Netanyahu came to power.

Under U.S. pressure, Netanyahu has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, while attaching conditions the Palestinians reject. But in the Haaretz interview, Arad took a dim view of the Palestinian leadership, saying he saw not a government but a "disorderly constellation of forces and factions."

There "could be worse" leaders than Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Arad said. "But even with him I don't see a real interest and desire to arrive at the end of the conflict with Israel. On the contrary, he is preserving eternal claims against us and inflaming them," he said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat called Arad's remarks "inappropriate and unacceptable."

"Israeli officials must stop playing this broken record," Erekat said. "President Abbas is president of the Palestinian people and he is a full partner. And he's waiting for an Israeli partner."

Israeli leaders have complained that Abbas is too weak to govern effectively. Abbas' Western-backed government rules only the West Bank, one of the two territories the Palestinians seek for their future state. He lost control of the Gaza Strip more than two years ago to the Islamic militants of Hamas.

Comments

[bronncohowie]

Israel is protecting it's citizens. Israel had been shelled by arabs from the Golan heights for many, many years. If America was being bombarded by Mexico the U.S. would have the right to stop it in any way it could. What's the difference ???

[LincolnParkChicago]

Is it true that Israel has been shelled for many years from the Golan Heights? Can you provide citations or links to an impartial source?

[LincolnParkChicago]

Wikipedia
Between World War I and the Six-Day War
“Before the Six-Day War, the strategic heights of the Golan, which are approximately 3,000 feet (1,000 m) above the bordering Hulah Valley in Israel, were used to frequently bombard civilian Israeli farming communities far below them, although Moshe Dayan (Israeli Defense Minister during the 1967 war) would later state that it was often the result of Israeli provocations in the demilitarized zone.[60] According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, former Israeli General Mattityahu Peled claimed that more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized area".[61] Syrian attacks killed 140 Israelis and injured many more from 1949 to 1967.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights

Note the reference to Dayan , It (shelling) was often the result of Israeli provocations in the demilitarized zone”

And to General Peled, “more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized area"

[gbrooks]

We wouldn't tolerate being shelled, but it's illegal and unethical to take their land.

Modern-day civilized, democratic countries simply don't do that, didn't you get the memo?

[LincolnParkChicago]

In 39 years nothing has changed except the map of Palestine.
"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.
"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]
Because:
" No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

[LincolnParkChicago]

"The celebrated commander, Moshe Dayan, who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was....'" New York Times, May 11, 1997
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

[CigarGod]

Good job. Have a cigar.
Unfortunately, historical fact is not enough to counter historical bra. in. wash--ing.

[gakabani]

Thank you!!!!!!

[mamacat]

I agree with Albert Einstein's analysis of Israeli behavior, written over 50 years ago. The way Israel has treated the Arabs is, in his words, comparable to the way that the Nazis treated the Jews.

It is difficult enough to argue that Jews had a right to use terror against the British and the Arabs in establishing their State, but they have since used the force of arms to expand their borders, and to further dispossess the indigenous peoples. There is at this time, as we speak, no indication that Israel intends to ever stop expanding.

[CigarGod]

It is easier to understand..when you realize that the ideology, the creators and main spokesmen of modern zionism all came from Austria.

Another inconvenient truth.

[mamacat]

If Israelis will not stop encroaching on Arab lands, then perhaps they will, in the interest of fairness, allow Arabs to confiscate an equal amount of Israeli territory? No? Then perhaps the Israelis will try to see why their position doesn't make sense.

It is time for everyone to say "enough is enough." No more killing of Israelis or of Palestinians, and no expansion of Israel beyong the 1967 borders. Everything else is unimportant. If they don't want to recognise each other's ambassadors, then so be it, as long as they live in peace.

[MajorKong]

"The area is also home to crucial water sources"

Everything else is window dressing. This is probably the main reason they want to hang on to it.

Out west they used to have a saying "Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over".

[WilliamL]

what some fail to realize is how trully sick and tired some in the world have become of the endless cylcle of killing by these two tribes

[greatscot]

International law forbids resettlement of captured territory by nationals of the occupying power. Israel is in violation, and also in violation of U.N. Resolution 242 which demands Israel remove occupying forces and settlers from captured territory.
I see a lot of postings in full Israeli propaganda bloom about their poor beseiged, yet heroic nation. The truth is that Israelis prepared well, and had massive military and financial aid from the diaspora, during the period immediately before U.N. partition of Palestine in 1948, and PROVOKED the Arabs deliberately, knowing that they could thereby seize territory. They even had a secret program to immediately bulldoze captured Arab villages so the residents could never return. Maps printed well before 1948 showed new Israeli towns with names taken from biblical times, where the Arab villages stood, so the Israeli assault on Arabs was a long-standing plan. All that was required to set it in motion was withdrawal of British troops at the conclusion of the U.N. Mandate.

Finally, one thing international law DOES recognise is the right of an occupied nation to resist its occupiers. The Palestinians are no more terroists than were the Soviet, French, or Jugoslav Resistance during WWII.

[Taxi]

To clarify further to your well documented points, 'Israelis' prior to '48 partition meaning European convert Jews.

I have a hunch that Palestine will be liberated with or without the help of the UN or the International (non) community.

[wordvarc]

The most vociferous claims of victimhood come from the fiercest perpetrators of violence.

[Aziat]

tough for syria, if they just accepted Israel from the beginning and didn't attack it, they might still have the Golan heights. But they did attack Israel and lost badly. They deserved to lose the Golan Heights. Now they are just sore losers

[MaxExpose]

tough for syria, if they just accepted Israel attacking from the beginning and didn't, they might still have lost the Golan heights. But they did attack Syria and won badly. They deserved to repopulate the Golan Heights. Now they are just sore winners

[SonnyBono]

Bibi says he wants to talk to the Syrians without any preconditions but then he says that Israel will keep all or part of the Golan Heights regardless of the outcome of any talks - sure sounds like a precondition to me and makes me want to ask if the Israelis intend to keep the Golan, why should the Syrians want to talk to them?

[lungfish]

Israel doesn't want peace for so many different reasons.

[TammyKnowsBest]

The Golan is a major water aquifer everyone, just like Lebanon's Sheeba Farms. Its the only reason this 4th most powerful military might continues to hold on to it. If Israel wanted it could invade Syria in a heartbeat like it did to take out some obscure facility. They don't need these mountains when they send nukes with a single press of a button.

[driven989]

Tammy, I notice you are always very insightful with your comments. Nice job...

Many of my comments, which are often fact-based with sited sources never make it to this board. Sometimes I wonder why that is?!...

[DeniseA]

As the article says, the Syrians used the Golan to launch terrorist attacks on Israel prior to 1967. Israel does not want to nuke Syria.

[Doomestic]

How many terrorist attacks did Israel launch against all of its neighbors? Did you even read about the terrorism used to establish Israel in the first place?

[Khirad]

Prior to 1967. That's what I read. Prior to 1967...

Sorry, it doesn't seem to me to even be about that anymore.

[stupid electrician]

For all the people who think that the problem in the middle east is political please wake up and realize it is a Holy War. You can call it what ever you want to feel better but the truth is it is about Muslims and Jews. Not us stuck up Americans thinking its Left or Right.

[Taxi]

It is about land theft.

Or NATION THEFT to be more accurate.

No more.

No less.

Always will be.

Religion shmiligion is only a recent development.

Perhaps if you stopped putting your silly finger in the wall socket you just might understand a thing or two about the DAILY LIVES of the oppressed in Palestine who are also CHRISTIAN.

[CigarGod]

LOL
Have a cigar.

[Khirad]

Well said. Religion is used to inflame and certainly has its share of the blame, especially amongst extremists, but it is NOT the root cause.

[DC]

You must be kidding? It is use of religion for an enterprise. Nothing new and not specific to any one people. It is just the way the world works.

And please do not call this an antisemetic or anti Jewish point of view. It is everything but.

"Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism. Silently they congratulate themselves on their courage. With a little sigh, they suppress any twinge of concern that maybe the goyim--let alone the Arabs--can't be trusted with this dangerous knowledge."

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html

[CigarGod]

Fav'd.

[DeniseA]

Plenty of professors of all religions don't agree with Prof. Neumann's viewpoint.

[Flyingpigs]

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

The PA has Sharia just like HAMAS as its mandated law... It has never been about land... If it was there would have been peace.... The ME has always been about religion which most Americans and Westerners never get - ie India & Pakistan as well as Lebanon as well Iraq (Sunni v Shi'ite) and almost every conflict in ME - its source is religion - even Al Qaeda: for them it was American infidels troops on holy land of Arabia...

[MemoryAlpha]

Contrary Evidence:
"Along the Syria border there were no farms and no refugee camps — there was only the Syrian army... The kibbutzim saw the good agricultural land ... and they dreamed about it... They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land... We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us."
Moshe Dayan, former Israeli defense minister

[misaacm]

The Israelis conquered the Golan in a defensive war, that makes the Golan theirs by international law. The 1949 Armistice border was never accepted by the Syrians anyways, so why should it be set in stone in 2009?.

However, if the Syrians were to offer a comprehensive peace, with open borders and trade then it might be worth trading most of the Golan back to the Syrians. This will NEVER happen. The Israelis offered that deal and Assad (the older and the younger) walked away. They both know that if the Syrians made peace with the the Israelis, their dictatorship would fall and they would be dead. The Assads only care about self preservation and the people of Syria remain poor to pay the price.

As Syria's oil runs out in the next few years, we will see more desperate actions by the Syrians. I doubt that Israel will open themselves up to Syrian bombardment from Golan, as they had from 1949-67 by giving the Syrians the high ground. Look elsewhere for a breakthrough peace settlement in the middle east.

[CigarGod]

They produce over 500,000 barrels of oil a day. Plenty of reserves (though smaller than most Arab nations) and have signed exploration deals.
Plus, they have a lot of natural gas.

Their oil is not running out in the "next few years".

Care to retool your argument?

[BackToFight]

Yeah, he just has to consult with his Israeli High School issued history text book.

[PWM]

Where in international law does it say they own that land?

Making stuff up I see.

[misaacm]

International Law makes a clear distinction between land "occupied" during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war. From the start of the 1967 war, Syria took part in the fighting with planes and artillery, continuously shelling Israeli villages near the border and attacking some of them with infantry and armour. There were no serious Israeli counter attacks until 9 June.

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to begin a battle of annihilation."

Syria's Defense Minister Hafez Assad (later to be Syria's President) June 1967

[Fein]

"The Israelis conquered the Golan in a defensive war" is false.

Israel started the war with an attack, June 5, 1967, They shouldn't been kicked out of it just like Saddam was from Kuwait. But the double standard applies to all Israeli action.

[stupid electrician]

Their water supply was being taken away from them they did what was needed to keep water flowing to the citizens. The dam building was the same as the supply road tactic used by Arabs in 1948 which many Israeli citizens died from.

[DeniseA]

In 1967, prior to the war, Israel was surrounded and outnumbered by Arab nations threatening to destroy her. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israel. That is an act of war. Israel did not start the war; she was defending herself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_war#Golan_Heights

Arab nations have their oil billions and 700 times the land mass, yet they don't want Israel to have the puny strip of land the UN gave them.

[pfc1369]

You are wrong.

The USSR defended itself from an invasion by Germany, and in the process ended up occupying most of Eastern Europe.

Did that belong to them to, by international law?

[mamacat]

In no sense of the word was the 1967 war a defensive war for Israel; it was a text-book case of a war of aggression. The war was started when Israel mounted a surprise attack on Egyptian land forces in the Egyptian Sinai and on air bases in African Egypt. Other Arab countries tried to come to the aid of Egypt, but they were of course no threat to the Westernised Israeli air force and army. Israel successfully expanded her borders, and continues to do so to this day.

The myth that Israel grabbed these lands during a defensive war is an amazing rewrite of history.