Netanyahu: Israel will never withdraw from Golan

[IndianaGreen]

Last update - 19:13 08/05/2009

Netanyahu: Israel will never withdraw from Golan

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a group of Russian-language reporters Thursday that Israel will never withdraw from the Golan Heights.

"Remaining on the Golan will ensure Israel has a strategic advantage in cases of military conflict with Syria," Netanyahu said during a briefing he gave to the reporters.

His comments were published Friday on several Russian-language Israeli Web sites.

A week-and-a-half out from Netanyahu's scheduled visit to Washington, the prime minister stressed that he is ready to stand up to U.S. President Barack Obama and that he would not give up on matters that in his opinion are critical to Israel's security.

Netanyahu said that he intends to emphasize to Obama the need to deal with Iran and its "nuclear program, which is a major obstacle to peace in the Middle East."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084194.html

Bibi should have added what the Likud Charter says, that Israel will never witdraw from any of the lands taken in 1967.

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. Bill Clinton: Israel-Syria peace deal could be reached within 35 minutes

"A peace agreement between Israel and Syria could be reached within 35 minutes, former U.S. president Bill Clinton told the Lebanon-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in an interview published Sunday.

Clinton said Israel and Syria were very close to reaching an agreement in 1998, adding that an accord could be reached assuming Iran does not play a role in the issue."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848517.html

====================================================================

However, there is a major problem. There are approximately 20,000 Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights. With plans to double the number to 40,000. It would take a fair amount of political will to change that agenda and even more to move the settlers. It's not impossible, but it could be very difficult.

From Washington Post:

Golan Heights Land, Lifestyle Lure Settlers
Lebanon War Revives Dispute Over Territory

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 30, 2006; Page A01

link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900926.html

snip:"The pace has picked up in recent years. Now, for the first time, the number of Jewish settlers in Golan may soon exceed the nearly 20,000 Arab residents whose families remained here after the war. The milestone may have already been passed, Arab leaders concede, with 400 Jewish families moving into Golan each year.

Since the Lebanon war ended on Aug. 14, settler leaders have launched a $250,000 advertising campaign to attract young Israelis with the lure of free land and a lifestyle ethic that blends Marlboro Country, Napa Valley and the X Games. Their goal is to double the Jewish population in Golan to 40,000 within a decade through an appeal that emphasizes cowboy hats over skullcaps"

link to full article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900926.html

[aquart]

3. Golan HEIGHTS.

You don't give your enemy an entrenched position from which to rain death down on you. This is why the settlers were encouraged. To make sure the Heights couldn't be retaken.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I invite you to think about the terms "peace process" and "enemy"...

"We can't make peace, it would put us at a disadvantage in the war" is a tragically common line of thinking.

[azurnoir]

2. What is obvious is that Israel has no intention

of making peace, what is refreshing is that they are at long last being honest about it.

[aquart]

4. I'm sorry. Did you miss the Hamas rejection of a two-state solution?

Yes, of course. ONLY the Jews are to blame.

Nobody wants a Palestinian state more than I do. Nobody. I want them to rip each other to bloody pieces. Because they annoy me.

[azurnoir]

6. And

[IndianaGreen]

7. Likud also rejects the 2-state solution

Likud - Platform

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

Likud Charter Does Not Recognize Palestine

(Note: CEIA-SC supports the establishment of a single, secular, pluralistic and democratic state with laws based on citizenship, not ethnicity or religion, in the whole region of historic Palestine, with full political and civil rights for all.)

By Frank Barat - London

In the "Peace and Security" chapter of the Likud Party platform, a recent document (1999) it says initially that:

"Peace is a primary objective of the State of Israel. The Likud will strengthen the existing peace agreements with the Arab states and strive to achieve peace agreements with all of Israel’s neighbors with the aim of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

But then it says about settlements:

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

Therefore annihilating the slightest chance of a two-state solution.

On Palestinian self-rule it says:

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."

Therefore annihilating any chance of seeing a Palestinian sovereign state.

On Jerusalem:

"Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz."

http://www.ceia-sc.org/page3/page66/page66.html

Like Hamas, Likud has refused to reject and denounce the views stated on the Charter of 1999, choosing instead to quietly remove the offending language while pursuing the very policies they advocated.

[LeftishBrit]

11. Wow.

Do you really wish bloody civil war on everyone who annoys you?

[madaboutharry]

5. Netsnyahu is a retrograde nutjob.

As long as he has power, there will be no peace. The whole process is in deep freeze until the next election or until he gets caught in bed with someone else's wife.

[solinvictus]

8. I don't blame him...

It would be suicidal of Israel to retreat from the Golan Heights.

[IndianaGreen]

9. If Israel were a person it would have been diagnosed as paranoid and sociopathic

Israel's troubles are caused by Israel's actions.

[Sezu]

12. You don't get it. Some here do not care about that

and are always cheerleaders for anything which will weaken Israel and compromise her security.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. all proposals regarding a withdrawal from the Golan assume a large array of early warning systems an...

and a large demilitarized zone - both of which would be under international or perhaps even American control. It appears that Syria would be quite willing to accept this in exchange for a full peace and full diplomatic relations with Israel along with an end to any support either side might give to armed groups hostile to the other side.

I can think of four very strong incentives for Israel to normalize relations with Syria:

1. It would greatly weaken the influence of Iran. Syria is Iran's only state allie in the Arab world.

2. It would mean the end or at least dramatic reduction in Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah including much Iranian support via Syria for Hamas and Hezbollah.

3. It could also likely mean the normalization of relations with Lebanon.

4. Syria is still a pivotal and influential country in the Middle East. Normalized relations between Syria and Israel would have the potential for opening up a great deal of commercial exchange and open movement of goods services between not only Israel and Syria, but Israel and the wider Arab world including the much more prosperous Gulf states.

I believe that it would be only about a three or four hour drive between Jerusalem and Damascus or Jerusalem and Beirut for that matter - if such movement was allowed. The commercial implications of this would be enormous.

It is accepted as a given than a withdrawal from the Golan would include a network of early warning systems and international monitors along with a workable arrangement on water usage.

There is no way that the Gulf states such as Kuwait, the UAE or Bahrain would ever normalize relations before Syria does. These are all places only about a one to one and a half hour flight from Tel Aviv or about twelve hours by land travel, small but wealthy countries with enormous economic resources and their own gateway free trade zones. Again the commercial implications of this would be enormous.

[Shaktimaan]

14. what? why?

Bibi should have added what the Likud Charter says, that Israel will never witdraw from any of the lands taken in 1967.

Why do you think so? Considering that Israel already has withdrawn from most of that land... actually, considering that Israel has already withdrawn from over 95% of that land why do you feel that such a statement would have any relevance or make any sense?

I find it extremely disturbing how you seem to believe certain things about this conflict despite their being totally contradictory to well known, firmly established, non-disputed, historical facts. Your statement makes as much sense as someone complaining about the Soviet refusal to ever withdraw from areas of Eastern Europe under their control.

Actually, even less considering that almost all of the withdrawals from 1967 gains were engineered under Likud or former Likud Prime Ministers. How much land did Israel withdraw from under Menachem Begin, for example? Bibi himself signed the Wye River Memorandum and implemented the initial stage during his first term as PM, turning most of Hebron over to the Palestinians.

Needless to say, everything I wrote above assumes that Likud's charter even says what you claim, which of course it does not. (Which may explain why no Likud PMs ever enforced it. Or spoke of it. Or refrained from doing the complete opposite.)

-----

Why do I get the feeling that someone is now going to try and twist this post into an admission that I am a right-wing supporter of Netanyahu or some other nonsense? You know, you don't have to be a Likudnik to question wild aspersions cast at them.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Here's a copy of the 'Peace and Security' section of the Likud Charter

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

They're of the batty opinion that the West Bank is part of the Land of Israel:

'The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.'

Why do I get the feeling that someone is now going to try and twist this post into an admission that I am a right-wing supporter of Netanyahu or some other nonsense? You know, you don't have to be a Likudnik to question wild aspersions cast at them.

Heh heh. Just another version of the 'someone's going to call me an antisemite' line...

[Shaktimaan]

16. Yup. I've seen it.

So what? It's a pretty far cry from what the poster I responded to was claiming. There is a huge difference between supporting settlements and a blanket refusal to withdraw from any land whatsoever.

Heh heh. Just another version of the 'someone's going to call me an antisemite' line...

Not really. I just didn't feel like getting sidetracked and so was hoping to clarify myself early on. You yourself have accused me of ascribing to some ideologies that I most certainly do not, based on similar posts of mine. The whole "Now that I've criticized Israel I'm going to be labeled an anti-semite" phenomenon is entirely different. The equivalent would have been if I had said "Now that I defended Likud I'll be accused of being bigoted against Palestinians." (But then, I wasn't even really defending Likud anyway. Which was the point I was trying to make.)

[Violet_Crumble]

17. So what?

It's saying that the West Bank is part of Israel. Not something I'd be going 'so what?' about, that's for sure. They're a bunch of flaming whackadoodles, and them and Hamas deserve each other...

Sorry, but what you did was exactly the same as the 'someone's going to call me an antisemite' line. It's exactly the same thing, and for the record, I have NEVER called you a supporter of Likud....

[Shaktimaan]

18. Let me ask you something, V.

what exactly was the point of your reply?

This is the original statement that I was refuting: "Bibi should have added what the Likud Charter says, that Israel will never witdraw from any of the lands taken in 1967." Were you offering evidence supporting this statement? Or refuting my reply in some way? Or were you just pointing out that Likud are assholes? Either way, I don't see the relevance to my post. That's why I said "so what?" As in, "so what, I know they believe in the right of Jews to settle in the OPT... what's that got to do with what I was saying?"

It's saying that the West Bank is part of Israel. Not something I'd be going 'so what?' about, that's for sure.

No, it is not saying that at all. Not in the sense of "Israel the country" anyway.

-----

You honestly think that calling someone a Likudnik is similar to accusing them of being an anti-semite? In what world are those two things similar? Calling someone a Republican is not remotely the same as calling them a racist.

You know, you don't have to see the difference, I don't really care. I'm not going to bother arguing over it anymore.