PM: No talks with Syria if it continues backing terror

[bemildred]

---

Ehud Olmert:

Olmert also called Syria the "single most aggressive member of the axis of evil."

"I am the last person who will say I want to negotiate with Syria," he said.

---

Avi Dichter:

"In return for a true peace with Syria or with Lebanon, over those issues that from the standpoint of the land have a history, which we know and the Syrians know and the Lebanese know, I think that what we did with Egypt and with Jordan is legitimate here as well."

---
Yuval Steinitz:

"The Golan Heights is a part of the state of Israel. It bears critical importance for the security of the state, the peace of the state, its ability to drink and to make the desert bloom in this difficult region," he told the radio.

Haaretz

[IndianaGreen]

1. Olmert must have the same speechwriter that Bush has

and his arguments are just as wrong as Bush's.

The Occupation is 24/7 terrorism perpetrated by Israel. Let's begin by ending that sordid affair first!

[bemildred]

2. Olmert is a war lover.

Israel will have war and more war until he is thrown out on his ass, along with his minions. His rhetoric does have similarities to the Bushites, mostly in the lack of any real-world meaning for what he says, it is all emotionally colored babble. You could make a good argument, I think, that Ehud IS a Bushite.

[IndianaGreen]

3. I don't think Olmert is a "war lover" per se, but that he is trapped

in a culture in which one side always perceives itself as the victims, and that as such, it is justified in doing anything to strike back, including punishing the innocent for any perceived transgressions.

If we stop looking at the Middle East I/P conflict less as a conflict between nations and look at it as more as a dispute between unruly dysfunctional children, the solution becomes quite clear: take away the toys over which they are fighting, and have the grown ups impose peace.

[bemildred]

4. Eh, OK, he is a deluded peace lover.

I notice you are an "israel hater" now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x145830#145881
:rofl::rofl:

[maalak]

5. Syria has refused to allow Lebanon to put int. troops at their border...

where they could ensure that they weren't supplying arms to Hezbollah.

how in the world can you negotiate for peace with someone who is backing terror?

[bemildred]

6. I thought Syria threatened to close the border if UN troops are

stationed there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2470999

Wouldn't that prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbullah? Or maybe not prevent, but they would be voluntarily not supplying arms to Hezbullah, or anybody, in Lebanon.

As far as I can tell, it's not "Lebanon" that wants to put troops on the Syrian border anyways, it's the Israeli government.

But anyway, if the UN does put troops on the Syrian border, and Syria does close the border, then it would seem like the perfect situation to start talks with Syria since it would then have stopped backing terror.

[maalak]

7. yes, but...

that would only serve to isolate Lebanon from any legitimate traffic across it's borders. it wouldn't put a dent in the smuggling operations of weapons to Hezbollah.

the objection is to prevent any form of international presence to monitor traffic across the border.

[bemildred]

8. Hey, if Olmert dropped the naval blockade, stuff could get in fine.

How does closing the border from the Syrian side and having UN troops on the Lebanese side not impede the flow of smuggled weapons across the Lebanon-Syria border? I have heard the argument that Assad is threatening closure to prevent the UN deployment, sort of a threat to isolate Lebanon if that happens, but it appears to me that Israel can fix that easily, that is that it's an empty threat. And you'd have the UN troops along that border, just like Olmert wants.

[maalak]

9. Israel's not going to drop a blockade until it can be assured...

.. that weapons are NOT being smuggled in, or at least as assured as they can possibly be.

given the history of weapons used to attack Israel being smuggled through Lebanon this is NOT an unreasonable position.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Israel should shut the fuck up and start complying with international law

and UN resolutions, beginning with UN Security Council Resolution 242, and withdraw from all lands taken in 1967, including East Jerusalem.

Better make peace now, while there is a United States to save your ass, than to wait until much later after the US withdraws from Iraq with our collective tails between our legs. Better to give up the Golan now than to fight to preserve Tel Aviv later.

[maalak]

11. you might have a point....

... if/when the rest of the world adheres to international law, and Hezbollah disarmas according to UN resolutions that require it ...

[Violet_Crumble]

12. That's a totally weak excuse...

'The rest of the world'? So until every other country in the world complies with international law then you feel that's an excuse for Israel to commit grave violations of international law? Why can't every other country in the world use the excuse that they're not going to until Israel does? Little kids try that 'waaaah! but look at what they're doing!!!' one on a lot and it doesn't usually work for them either...

[maalak]

13. maybe if just Hezbollah disarmed?

or would that be too much to expect... there's an awful lot of crying here about Israel and "international law" (often based on a seriously flawed understanding of them) and "UN Resolutions", but it seems many here think they should only apply to Israel and not those who have pledged it's destruction.