News that matters
May 10, 2010
Haaretz's Zvi Bar'el (left)
In what amounts to be the worst math lesson ever, Haaretz’s Zvi Bar’el tells us a beautiful story of peaceful utopia Israel would have with Syria, if only the former would return the Golan Heights to the latter:
Peace with Syria might neutralize the military threat from that country, stop Hezbollah from arming and put Iran in a confusing situation, even if it doesn’t break off its relations with Syria. Peace with Syria and the Palestinians would also change Turkey’s position and neutralize the hostility between Israel and the other Arab countries.
In short, the military threat would lose a great deal of its punch. A rational country, even one not seeking peace – and Israel, after all, is not one – would have done the arithmetic long ago and understood that by continuing to hold on to the Golan Heights, the chances of a confrontation would simply grow. It would have understood that the threat does not lie in the circles that mark the missile range but in those territories it continues to occupy.
(Haaretz)
WHILE BAR’EL HOLDS a Ph.D in history of the Middle East, he missed the Modern History classes, as Israel was through it all before:
The “legitimate” claims on Israeli land are made by same people who viciously attacked Israel on several occasions, killing thousands of its civilians and soldiers. Same people who constantly shot at Israeli farmers and bombed northern Israeli settlements without merit for years, causing disastrous damages. A country that started a war against another country cannot expect to have “legitimate” claims on territory it lost during the offensive.
Imagining that Syria would give up its military struggle against Israel is nothing but a dream, and Bar’el should indeed wake up. Take Lebanon as an example: in 2000, Israel pulled back to internationally-recognized borders, yet Hassan Nasrallah found pretext to attack again, saying Israel still holds Lebanese territory. What would prevent Syrians from manufacturing another pretext? After all, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad told reporters on several occasions that no negotiations could be made with Syria unless Israel agrees to leave the Golan Heights. Read that again: Bashar al-Assad will begin negotiations after Israel declares it would withdraw from the Golan. If all Syria is after is the Golan Heights, what else could it negotiate about? Or is there something bigger Assad plans?
The utopia of having peace with both Syrians and the Palestinians does not address the simple question Israel ran into several times: what happens if they lie? What if the Palestinians sign a piece of paper, and then attack Jerusalem with mortars and Gush Dan area with Qassams? Have we not learned lesson of Yasser Arafat, who did precisely that – signed Oslo agreements and renew suicide attacks inside Israel? And what if Syrians do come up with some other pretext – say, demand Israel absorbs all Palestinian refugees from its territory – and after receiving a negative reply, starts using its own paramilitary groups from the Heights? After all, reports from two years ago say Syria prepares its own Hezbollah-style group, whose purpose would be to fight for the heights. Is there no chance at all Syria would use such groups? And who would control the border? If Syrian army is as competent as that of Lebanon, wouldn’t it be one of the worst deals ever?
Last, but certainly not least, this wet dream does not address the issue of Palestinian incitement and propaganda. After being taught for generations – since age two and three – to kill the Jews, would the Arab people change their mindset within a few months or a year? Would they one day wake up, forget TV shows preaching genocide and decide it’s time to live in peace? Decades ago, Arabs turned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a religious conflict, claiming the Jews weren’t just enemies of Palestinians or occupiers of a land – they are enemies of Islam, we are being told, who should be killed. That is what Palestinians and Syrian children see daily on their TV sets.
There is only one upside to Zvi Bar’el’s article – few people would take him seriously. He proposes few solutions, just shares his dreams. Sadly, that is what the Left camp does time after time – sleeping in a sweet land of huge mushrooms and growing seven-leafers, where everyone holds hands and sings to the tunes of Kumbaya. Thankfully for us, we live in a real world.
