Olmert: Ceding entire Golan is price of peace with Syria

[Doondoo]

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday that peace with Syria would mean giving up the Golan Heights, seized by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed in 1981.

"The whole world knows that in any future negotiations, if they are renewed, we will have to give up on the entire Golan Heights," Olmert said during a heated exchange with oppposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud).

Netanyahu had reacted angrily to Olmert's assertion that three of his predeccessors, Netanyahu included, had held talks with Syria on a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

Olmert told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that, according to documents, the prime ministers from 1993 to 2001 (a reference to Yitzhak Rabin, Netanyahu and Ehud Barak) - had all held negotiations with Syria during which it had been clear that any agreement would entail Israel completely ceding the Golan and withdrawing to the 1967 border.

But Netanyahu interrupted Olmert's remarks, saying, "You know that's not right."

"You know it's true," replied Olmert. "Don't try to hide the truth."

Later in the discussion, the prime minister reiterated his opposition to negotiations with Damascus, on the grounds "Syria is interested in the industry of peace, rather than real peace."


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/824917.html

[AZDesertRat]

1. That's a tall order...

given the strategic importance of the Golan Heights.

[bemildred]

2. I have read that Barak came within a whisker of doing that deal.

It would be interesting to get his comments on Olmert's assertion.

[jaysunb]

3. Great ! So when does the "peace" get started ?

n/t

[Tom Joad]

4. It's been damn near 40 years, it would be about time.

It's not only a good idea, its the law.

[cali]

6. wouldn't it be nice if things were as

simple in reality as they are in your mind? Clue: They're not. They never have been.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Maybe you'd like to point out what was incorrect in Tom's post? n/t

[cali]

8. Not particularly. I think my post was self-explanatory n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

10. It was, but not in the way you think it was n/t

[LSK]

14. UN Resolution 242

Try reading it.

http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm

[The Magistrate]

9. For That Same Amount Of Time, Mr. Joad

It has been the law that Syria remounce all claims or states of belligerency against Israel, and recognize its right to exist, and the tight of its people to live, free from attack and threats of attack. Syria has not complied with any of this, most noteably by sponsorship of and assistance to various armed militant bodies whose raison d'etre is violence against Israel and the destruction of that state.

[ddbaj]

12. Is that really the law?

I thought all nation states had a right to recognize or not recognize other nation states as they desire. I am honestly curious about this particular point.

On the broader question, whatever Syria has done does not justify Israel's actions. Also, getting into a game of comparing who's broken more international law is not only a sad and pointless game, but one that if played usually yields Israel as the loser.

[The Magistrate]

13. If The Law In Question Is Resolution 242, Sir

Generally cited in claims Israel is violating international law by maintaining occupation of the Golan Heights, than it is certainly applicable, as the item directs those things occur, as well as the withdrawl more commonly cited.

It is somewhat different from directing diplomatic relations, the common usage of recognition. Syria is not required to exchange ambassadors, but it is required to cease any formal state of belligerency, and recognize Israel and its people have a right to live free from force and threats of force against them. It has manifestly not done this.

My purpose in pointing this out is simply to equalize matters, as neither side in this conflict makes much point of compliance with U.N. resolutions and other elements of international law.

[sabbat hunter]

11. well how about

syria unconditionally recognizes israel's right to exist, truly withdraws all support from illegal forces in lebanon, renounces its claim to israeli territory. (they claim that territory that they held from 1949-1967 that was supposed to belong to israel from day 1 belongs to syria)

syria so far has refused to do any of that. they want the golan heights back just to go to the negotiating table (supposedly) for a peace treaty. they refuse to do anything on their end to support 242.

[Robson]

5. UN Resolution 242

I thought that was the purpose of UN Res 242 signed unanimously 40 years ago.