Are those really "painful concessions" to achieve peace"?

Question

Lately we have been hearing (quite a lot actualy) the Israeli government speaking of being ready to make "painful concessions" for the sake of peace... meaning they are willing to give back parts of the Golan heights to Syria and parts of the West Bank to a Palestinian future state.

Noting that the entirety of the Golan Heights and the entirety of the West Bank (together with east Jerusalem) belong to Syria and the Palestinians respectively...

Do you think that such an offer should be considered a concession made by Israel or is it Syria and Palestine who are being asked to make this concession to Israel by abandoning parts of their internationaly recognized territories?

Edit to moneymaker: you clearly have no idea what international law is, International law is mainly the resolutions of International Organizations like the UN. In this regard International law is clear... it says to Israel return all lands to the pre 1967 war armistice line.

Edit to gatvol: The status of Jeruslem as a corpus separatum was in accordance with SC resolution 181 of 1948 which is totally outdated now and no one is seeking its implementation including Israel. On the other hand SC resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973 are considered as the acceptable basis for any solution by all sides... Nothing about corpus separatum there... just the pre 1967 armistice line as recognized borders.

Edit to londonminx: Well if I were you, I wouldn't go so blindly behind what moneymaker and gratvol say. just read my edits to them and you'll see that their answers aren't that excellent after all.
As for what Syria used to do with the Golan we have to note the differences between then and now. Befire 1967 Israel and Syria were (and in fact still are) in a state of war. Recent attempts for peace mean the return of land for full peace and normalization of relations between the two nations. resulting hypothetically in the secation of hostilities. This formula has worked before with Egypt and Jordan, why presume before even trying that it won't work with the others, in addition today's warfare is totally different from warfare back in the 1960s territories are no longer of such startegic importance with the presence of Missiles and WMD, So whu is Israel refusing those latest proposals unless it has other hidden agendas or motives.

Edit to londonminx: Well if I were you, I wouldn't go so blindly behind what moneymaker and gratvol say. just read my edits to them and you'll see that their answers aren't that excellent after all.
As for what Syria used to do with the Golan we have to note the differences between then and now. Befire 1967 Israel and Syria were (and in fact still are) in a state of war. Recent attempts for peace mean the return of land for full peace and normalization of relations between the two nations. resulting hypothetically in the secation of hostilities. This formula has worked before with Egypt and Jordan, why presume before even trying that it won't work with the others, in addition today's warfare is totally different from warfare back in the 1960s territories are no longer of such startegic importance with the presence of Missiles and WMD, So whu is Israel refusing those latest proposals unless it has other hidden agendas or motives.

Edit to Michael J: I accept your argument, it is the most reasonable of those posted so far. But do you really believe that Israel has a right in the natural resources of an occupied land? Wouldn't that be like saying that the US has the right to exploit the oil of Iraq after its occupation? Not that they are not trying to, but it still doen't make it the right thing to do.
I think to reach a solution to the ME problem we just have to relinquish all those outdated theories about annexing territories by force and that the spoils of war goes to the winner. This used to be true in the ages of the Ancient Empires you know Romans, Greek, but this concept ended with the fall of European Colonialism in Africa... we can not keep going today with this mentality... it just doesn't work and isn't acceptable any more.
Allow me to bring back the Analogy of the US and Iraq. Can you immagine the US being the only super power annexing parts of Iraq to the US since they have conquered and occupied it

Edit to NYC Chutzpah: What are you talking about? there are no territorial disputes between Syria and Lebanon!
The only pending issue is that of the Shibaa farms under Israeli occupation. Israel refused to return it to Lebanon claiming that it was Syrian. But Syria said that its not Syrian its Lebanese Soil.
So either Lebanese or Syrian, Israel has nothing staying there.

Edit to Wittyweasel: Who are those Mohammedans you are tlking about? Are they your lates mythical fantasy? ;-)
Cheers.

Edit to wanderkind: Repeated talk, we have heard it a thousand times and replied to it a thousand times. End result the Arabs have presented a peace initiative in 2002 it summarizes all of your bla bla in just a few words... pre-1967 borders for complete peace and recognition. So just stop talking Bronze age, Roman international law, outdated SC resolution 181, playing with words in 242 etc etc etc... In short stop your deceit game and give us a direst reply... Do you want peace or not?

Edit to Wanderkind: It is not about the right of return... if you read all relevant resolutions including the Arab initiative it calls for and I quote "Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194". GA resolution 194 in case you don't know what it talks about, talks about the right of return and/or compensations. So end result Arabs have demonstrated their willingness to negotiate a solution to the refugees not necessarily calling for the return of all of them, But again I pose this question are you willing to compensate them, are you willing to achieve peace?

Answer 1

I'm not exactly sure how "painful concession" equates with giving back something that was never yours in the first place. I expect though, that some of the "pain" involved might have a bit to do with the Palestinians having equal access to Jordan River water; for the uninformed, Arafat turned down a offer of a Palestinian State with absolutely no water rights. Currently, Israel receives four gallons to every one gallon the Palestinians receive.
Additionally, I can't see how leaving those settlements is going to be too much of a pain for those Zionists either, since they were built with money taken without my consent from ME, the American taxpayer.

Answer 2

The UN created both Palestine and Israel in one resolution called 181 where Israel got more than 55% of the land and Palestine got the rest. The UN resolutions on Palestine-Israeli conflict are tied to gather. 242 and 338 resolutions brought back all the legal Issues between Israel and Palestine.242 mentioned solving the issue of Palestinian refugees and the issue of the refugees can go back to 181 resolution and 194. The Israeli mentality in peace negotiation is based on denial to any Palestinian legal clam. Palestinian legal borders are the UN181 resolution and not the 242 UN resolution or 67 Arab-Israeli war. A viable Palestinian State is the state created by the UN and if Israel has the right to exist so does Palestine and life goes on generation after generation till Palestine viable realization.

Answer 3

I Highly Commend the Question(eer?) and to All those who have Responded. ALL of You have Obviously spent many Many hours Studying and doing In depth Research into The History of This Area/Land Dispute between Isr. GH, WBank, Palestine, etc. YA could use WAY More Discussions, Debates such as this Q. has brought forth. Since I'm doing a formidable job on the mutilation of the English Language .. I have Limited Knowledge of the Struggle(s) of Isr. and surrounding Areas over the Years. WHAT I DO KNOW is that the "Orthodox Jews" have been Aggressively VOICING, In Protest of The Zionist Rule . over the Jewish People wanting to live in Peace. The PROBLEM with Israel, The U.S., and The Whole World is that the BushNaziFascist Regime here in America, is that Cheneys/bush's Administration/Cabal is in the MAJORITY of These Zionist Jews(or "Fake" Jews) I would think it Only Proper to Name some of These SCUMBAGS: Wolfowitz - Perle - Feith-Bolton, Abrams, - Libby, -- William"The Flamer"Kristol, - Zelikow (the Director of 9/11 COVER-UP) - Lieberman?, The Fleisher Bros.- Zoellick - Kissinger - ALL Zionists. Now throw in The NaziFascist connection of Haass, - Kagan - Gary Schmitt, - Karl"with a K" Von RovenNazi, - Armitage? - Herr Donald Von Rumsfeld, - Muellar - Pipes? - Gaffney - Krauthammer(columnist/author) - Wurmser - and we're not Real sure what Newt Gingbitch is, nor that Freak Chertoff, nor DirtyDickHalliburton, part ZioJew?, Nazi? or Quite possibley(along w/Condi Rice ITS HER EYES!) be Bordering on Reptillian..So when ALL these Traitors are REMOVED from Office/D.C. , then wrap-up a few Thousand loose Ends, like Members of Bohemian grove, Skull & Bones, a Bunch of nasty Freemasons, Bilderberger(s) CFR's, AIPAC's, NWO Larva, ILLUMINATI types, a handful of DIRTYciaAgts. that helped pulloff Sept. 11th. Oh and Hang that Sewer Rat Ghouliani, No Later Than.....IMMEDIATELY !!http://video.google.com/videohosted?docid=6952102263921897950 > Good Luck to ALL.....

Answer 4

Clearly both sides are making concessions. That is what a compromise is after all.
Giving back the Golan Heights would certainly be a painful concession. The Golan provides both strategic defensible positions as well as the headwaters to the Kinneret - Israel's water supply. To return this land to Syria for peace would be a concession on Israel's part.
Setting aside the murky facts surrounding the Palestinian claim to the West Bank, it would still be a concession by Israel. Any withdrawal would include among it the forceful evacuation rehousing of civilians as well as the loss of strategic points similar to those of the Golan.
From the Syrian and Palestinian angle, it is difficult to consider not receiving the whole (if that is indeed what happens) as a concession. It is their unwillingness to talk peace, and their arrogance to attack Israel which led to Israel's control over both of these areas. In the days before an "international community" these lands would have been forever lost; now that we are in a time that we talk peace that is no longer so, but it is nevertheless foolish to think that either of these groups has a right to the occupied lands with no strings attached.
Any peace deal would be a compromise, and that means painful concessions on both parts.

EDIT: My mention of the headwaters of the Kinneret was more a matter of preserving the water that is intended for Israeli use, i.e. that which flows into the Kinneret. While the Golan was in Syrian hands, the Syrians tried multiple times to divert the flow away from the Kinneret in an attempt to cut off Israel's water. Also, your analogy to the US-Iraq war is quite different, as the US attacked Iraq and not the other way around; the US is occupying Iraq offensively while Israel is "occupying" the Golan defensively, which is an important distinction in this context. While your argument against annexation by force is interesting, let us not forget that the only reason Israel currently has the Golan is because that is exactly what Syria tried to do. I doubt you would be arguing against conquest had the war gone the other way.

Answer 5

What exactly is the Palestinian claim to East Jerusalem?

If we are going with international law (which you claim to uphold)

Jerusalem is Corpus separatum and dose not belong to any nation.
Funny how that is ignored when you want it to be the capital of Palestine.


Second, Syria is not making any land concessions, in fact what it is demanding is a land grab in violation of international law.

Syria is demeaning all of the Golan Heights as well as the territory it captured from Israel in 1949. Again the fact that Israel was mandated the territory around the sea of Gallie is of no concern to Syria, and is the main reason why peace talks have broken down between Israel and Syria.


As for the West Bank, I say let the Palestinians have the whole thing. Including the the 250,000 Jewish settlers that live there.

After all if Israel can have a 20% Arab population then Palestine can have a 20% Jewish population.

It would be quite racist to say Jews are not allowed to live their wouldn't it?


Now I wonder if he has a responce...

Answer 6

Just wondering why all the onus is directed towards Israel to make "painful concessions"?

Please name "ONE" concession, painful or otherwise the Mohammedans have made, AND FULFILLED, toward Israel over the past 40+ years.

Meanwhile, Israel has:

1.) Returned the Sinai to Egypt
2.) Evacuated Gaza settlements (forcibly)
3.) Sent financial and material aid and infrastructure support
to the PA.
4.) Offered to accede to 98% of the PLO demands by Arafat
( and were turned down . . . after which Arafat initiated the
second wave of terrorist attacks on Israel).
5. Supplied weapons to the PA to fight HAMAS terrorists
and which were then immediately turned over to the very
terrorists they were meant to curtail.
4.) Been EXTREMELY restrained in their military responses
to daily, indescrimiate rocket and terrorists attacks on
their civilian population. (If Israel chose to respond to any
opposition the way President Hafez al Assad dealt with
the town of Hama in Syria, there wouldn't be
a "Palestinian problem anymore . . .).
5.) Israel has a large Mohammedan population which, I 've
noticed, has NO intention of rushing the security barrier
to risk their lives to get OUT of Israel and INTO the
Palestinian territories. (That must be one of the bitterist
bones in the throats of those who claim Israel is
an "aparthide", "racist" state!)
6.) Israel subsidizes excellent education for ALL its citizens,
whether Jew, Mohammedan or Christian.
7.) Israel issues daily work permits to approximately 30,000
Palestinians to work in Israel ( who, I might note, can't find
work in the PA because of the chaos and corruption of
both Fatah and HAMAS Palestinian politicians!)
8.) Etc., etc., etc. . . . . .

Now, exactly WHAT "concessions" have the Arabs and Mohammedans made to Israel in the past 40+ years other than the two "cold" peace treaties signed by Jordan and Egypt?

Oh, and while Israel has four Arab Mohammedan members of her Parliament (who have even been free to travel to countries with which Israel is at war ), how many Jews serve in ANY Arab government?

Racism? Aparthide? . . . I suggest you look in your mirror !

Note to msafwat: Those Mohammedans are each and every individual who worship Mohammad as a god and who are willing to sentence to death any non-Mohammedan who draws a picture of him. That is clearly an indication of pagan and barbaric idol worship.

If Mohammedans don't want images of Mohammad, fine and dandy . . . but that stricture applies ONLY to those of the Mohammedan faith. It is irrelevant to those of other faiths and to threaten death for someone else for insulting your religion is clearly insane. If that were not so, all the hatred and stereotypical filth that pours out of the Arabic media would be grounds for exterminating every Mohammedan on earth. Luckily, other faiths aren't as barbaric as Islam . . . .

I also noticed that, as usual, you resort to personal attacks rather than address the answers. That's always a sign of the failure of your position.

All the best . . . . :-)

Answer 7

There is no real peace process and no "painful concessions" these are entertainments to make people busy

Answer 8

All that land was annexed during wars that Israel didn't start. Israel is in-titled to keep all of it by international law.
Russia doesn't give back islands that used to belong to Japan, because Japan was the aggressor, and land was annexed, Russia also doesn't give back Prussia back to Germany for the same reason.
Should the US give back Texas back to Mexico? No, I don't think so.
By sacrificing part of the Golan Heights Israel really extends its hand for peaceful handshake, the only problem is that this gesture, like all others will be seen by the Arabs as a sign of weakness, and not a peace gesture. It will be a dumb move on the part of Israel because Arabs will say exactly what you (the asker) said: "Why parts? Why not all of the land?!?" To which my personal reply would be "Because you attacked my country, and you killed my soldiers, they died for this land, and therefore it is mine until you can take it away from me." But Israeli PM (I respect Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad more then I respect "Olmert the co**-sucker") doesn't happen to agree with my point of view, and he will probably give you parts and later all of that land.

Once you get all of the land back (and if Israeli mentality doesn't change, I believe you will soon) it will only be natural for you and your people to push for complete destruction of Israel.

Best position for Israel is to stay tough. Answer with 25 rockets for every Kassam. Every attempt of a terrorist attack should be followed by massive arrests and deportation of the leaders of organization responsible.
Every successful terrorist attack should be followed by annexing miles and miles worth of land.
Lucky for you, Israeli administration is worried what they look like in the eyes of Europe and USA, and not in the eyes of their own people.

Only when you stay strong, and respect yourself, only then will your enemies and your allies respect you. Right now Israel is losing respect not only from her enemies, but from her allies as well.

Edit: I do in fact have some ideas of what international law for annexation is. Here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation

And is that the best argument you can give me? Your best sucks.

" But do you really believe that Israel has a right in the natural resources of an occupied land? Wouldn't that be like saying that the US has the right to exploit the oil of Iraq after its occupation? "
What?!? Are you f**king kidding me? Did Iraq attack the US the way Syria attacked Israel? No! So stop twisting the truth. Next thing, you are going to compare Ugo Chaves to Julius César, and based on that tell us that Israel must give its lands back?

Israel MUST keep this land to let Syria once and for all know not to ever mess with Israel again. There might never be peace, but Syria knows it'll be destroyed if it tries something funny, so there never be war. Syraia made a mistake and must pay for it.
If Israel does give the Golani back, there will be a war.

Answer 9

Sure, giving up what doesn't belong to you can be "painful" if you want it really badly. Probably it can be called a concession too. I wouldn't.

Yeah, the Israelis have made claims to a lot of the territory in the name of "security." But then, how is it "security" when they build Jewish-only settlements on property they confiscated from Palestinians all over the West Bank, why did they demolish over 100 civilian Arab villages in the Golan Heights, 18,00 homes and a couple villages in the West Bank and whole communities in the Sinai (before they gave it back)? Why did they send 300,000 more people into exile, mostly civilians who had no part in the militaries of their respective countries, and prevent their return?

And I believe did hear that Israel floated an offer to Syria to return to UN partition lines, meaning Israel would keep a slight sliver of land along the east side of Lake Tiberias that was allotted to the Jewish state in the UN resolution but given to Syria in the armistace agreement, and Syria would get the rest of the Golan Heights. Syria immediately agreed. Israel could go back to 55% of historic Palestine allotted to it by the UN plan. That was the end of that offer.

Re who started the war:
It's kind of hard to say that Israel didn't start the wars. In the 1947-1949 war during which Israel was founded, MOST of the fighting was OUTSIDE the territory allotted for the Jewish state in the UN partition plan (resolution 181), and was attacks by Zionist forces on Arab villages, towns and cities. You can claim that the neighboring Arab states attacked Israel in May 1948, but this was after the major massacre by Zionist forces at Deir Yassein, the destruction of several dozen Arab villages and several minor massacres. Yes, the Arabs had tried to put together some defenses before that - they had been opposed to the immigration of Zionists from the start of the Zionist project, and committed a few massacres as well, but far less than the Zionists. Furthermore, some Zionists had long contemplated getting rid of the native Palestinians by various means. The ethnic cleansing committed by Zionists may have been oppurtunistic, but it was also intentional and systematic. Lots of nations have committed atrocities, but I don't know any other nation formed since WWI that was FOUNDED on the concept of ethnic cleansing.

In 1956 Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt. Clearly aggression. Israel had also attacked Arab villages in the DMZ between Israel and Syria in order to develop water resources there, although the armistace agreement clearly stated that the sovereignity over the DMZ was unresolved and neither side would make unilateral efforts to claim them, and incited Egyptian Jews to make terrorist attacks (the "Lavon affair"), hijacked a Syrian airliner, and its army had made numerous cross-border raids, deliberately killing many unarmed civilians. If the Palestinians got "miles of land" for every Israeli state-sponsored murder of Arab civilians, there probably wouldn't be any Israel left. Certainly there's been some belligerance on the part of the Arabs, but more from the Israelis, far more attacks on neighboring countries than vice versa, and far more deaths of innocent people at Israel's hands. All because they don't want Palestinians in "their" land.


One major concession by agreed to by the Palestinians was 78% of the their historic homeland, regarding those so-called Israeli concessions:

1.) Returned the Sinai to Egypt
- True

2.) Evacuated Gaza settlements (forcibly)
- They were illegal in the first place,

3.) Sent financial and material aid and infrastructure support
to the PA.
- And demanded it protect illegal Israeli settlements with it

4.) Offered to accede to 98% of the PLO demands by Arafat
( and were turned down . . . after which Arafat initiated the
second wave of terrorist attacks on Israel).
- This is fake Israeli hasbera. No such offer was ever made in writing - nor did Arafat initiate a second wave of terrorist attacks. 98%? Like, Israel offered to accept back 98% of the refugees? Or 98% of East Jerusalem? Which 98%?
5. Supplied weapons to the PA to fight HAMAS terrorists
and which were then immediately turned over to the very
terrorists they were meant to curtail.
- This is a peace offer? Sounds more like divide and conquer. Technically (if you read the Oslo agreements), the PA is an agent of the Israeli occupation.

4.) Been EXTREMELY restrained in their military responses
to daily, indescrimiate rocket and terrorists attacks on
their civilian population. (If Israel chose to respond to any
opposition the way President Hafez al Assad dealt with
the town of Hama in Syria, there wouldn't be
a "Palestinian problem anymore . . .).
- If Israel is "restrained," how come, in the first month the recent intifada, 100 Palestinian civilians were killed in the occupied territories BEFORE there was a SINGLE indiscriminant attack by Palestinians on Israeli civilians, before a single Palestinian attack inside Israel?

5.) Israel has a large Mohammedan population which, I 've
noticed, has NO intention of rushing the security barrier
to risk their lives to get OUT of Israel and INTO the
Palestinian territories. (That must be one of the bitterist
bones in the throats of those who claim Israel is
an "aparthide", "racist" state!)
- Now he's suggesting that the Israeli Palestinians who managed not to be ethnically cleansed in 1948 should voluntarily ethnically cleanse themselves by rushing out of Israel - gotta laugh at that one

6.) Israel subsidizes excellent education for ALL its citizens,
whether Jew, Mohammedan or Christian.
- But far from equally - Jews get much more in the way of public services. Yeah, just last month they finally allowed teaching a little bit about the ethnic cleansing of 1948 - in Arab textbooks only. I guess an excellent education doesn't mean teaching the truth.

7.) Israel issues daily work permits to approximately 30,000
Palestinians to work in Israel ( who, I might note, can't find
work in the PA because of the chaos and corruption of
both Fatah and HAMAS Palestinian politicians!)
- And Israel gets menial labor at a very cheap price - plus, as they control all imports and exports to the occupied territories, they've prevented the growth of Palestinian industry there. Corruption and chaos there may be, but Israel contributes its share.

8.) Etc., etc., etc. . . . . .
Well, one should laugh at the mis-information spread by Zionists referencing Dennis Ross - who worked for AIPAC at some point in his career. And stating there are 250,000 settlers in the West Bank - there are nearly half a million, and all the judges in the International Court of Justice have noted that they are there illegally, as is most of the wall Israel is building. Don't take my word about international law, however, I'm sure the Palestinians would let them stay, even those whose homes were built on confiscated private land, if the refugees that were ethnically cleansed could return.

Sure, Israel makes claims of tolerance. They prosecuted one of the Israeli Palestinians members of parliament simply for stating that Israel should be a "state for all its citizens" As for the claims of allowing religious freedom, Israel has demolished hundreds of mosques (OK, it wasn't to prevent worship so much as to prevent Palestinians who had been ethnically cleansed from Israel from worshipping in the mosques )

You'll note that I've mostly responded to some of the more ridiculous but constantly repeated propaganda in the answers given here.

Answer 10

Gravtol and Moneymaker both - as usual! - give really excellent responses.

I would just like to add that we all must remember what Syria used the Golan for when she controlled it: she used it to attack Israel.

I think it's amazing that Israel is even considering giving part of the Golan back, and it just shows how desperate the jewish state is for peace. What a pity we can't say the same thing about Syria.