Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Israel and Syria Announce Peace Talks
uk.reuters.com — It's about time! Israel and Syria are holding indirect peace talks through Turkey in Istanbul, a Turkish Foreign Ministry official told Reuters on Wednesday. Israeli officials confirmed.
devoted- 50 diggs
- digg it
- dkapuchino, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5Let's say both sides are willing to compromise, and an agreement can be achieved. Is this even worth anything without Iran's approval?
What's to stop them from building another Hezbollah in Syria, just like they did to Lebanon? Will the Syrians go against the Iranians on this one?
For now, Sunni Syria and Shiite Iran are allies, out of their hatred for Israel. What happens to that alliance once the common enemy is no longer an enemy? - foopirata, on 05/21/2008, -2/+6It will be terrible to loose the Golan, but if that's the price of peace...
- hadees, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5That is only if Syra can be trusted in the long term. The Golan is a key strategic location. Syria has already once tried and cut off Israel's main supply of water from there. I don't trust dictators.
- foopirata, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4And right you are. But in this era where Syria is arming itself with a swarm of missiles, the buffer provided by the Golan in a first-strike scenario is sort of negated. More so, militarizing the Golan in advance of an attack would be easily spotted by satellite, so a scenario where the Syrian army pounces under cover of a missile attack is also questionable.
On a strategic basis I think it can be done, the Golan can go back to Syria and become a demilitarized zone. But on a personal, sentimental level, I'll be very sorry to see the Golan go.- dkapuchino, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4If the last war in lebanon proved anything, it would be that Satellites can't spot militariazation at all.
- foopirata, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3I beg to differ. One thing is to spot a camouflaged bunker, another is to spot a ballistic missile and its launcher. One thing is to spot infantry movement in small groups inside a variated topography, another is to see tanks and artillery moving over the expanses of the Golan. The topology of the Golan and of Lebanon is quite different.
- hadees, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I think the main strategic reason for holding onto the Golan is to protect Israel's main water supply. It does act as a buffer but with out water Israel can't exist. Now ballistic misses may not be stopped by the Golan but if you plan on doing a ground invasion it is a lot harder to invade uphill.
The only way I can ever see a peace deal with Syria working is if both countries share control over the area letting citizens from both countries use it.
I think a vote of the residents for which state they wish to belong to also might work but i doubt Syria would accept the Jews who live there voting. Also although I have heard Druze, the main Syrian residents of the Golan, identify as Syrians and profess to love that country I just can't fathom anyone willingly voting to be merged back into Syria. I think their talk is due to fear of what would happen to them if Syria ever did get back the territory.
- foopirata, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4And right you are. But in this era where Syria is arming itself with a swarm of missiles, the buffer provided by the Golan in a first-strike scenario is sort of negated. More so, militarizing the Golan in advance of an attack would be easily spotted by satellite, so a scenario where the Syrian army pounces under cover of a missile attack is also questionable.
- vault, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4If Israel makes peace with Syria, that won't include Hezbollah, or will it?
If it doesn't include Hezbollah, won't Syria just attack Israel through Hezbollah? I don't see what the point of making peace with Syria is if it doesn't keep Hezbollah under control.- hadees, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Well the idea is that Hezbollah get's its arm from Iran through Syria. If Syria stops providing that service then in theory Hezbollah wouldn't be able to rearm. So while there might be another war at some point they would likely end up crippled with no way to replenish their weapons.
I however have serious doubts of Syria actually cutting off ties with Iran and so long as they maintain that relationship it doesn't seem likely Syria will do anything to stop the arms flowing to Hezbollah even though they may not do the actual shipping themselves. And really the entire point of the deal is to undercut Hezbollah because Syria isn't much of a threat to Israel in the conventional army sense.
- hadees, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Well the idea is that Hezbollah get's its arm from Iran through Syria. If Syria stops providing that service then in theory Hezbollah wouldn't be able to rearm. So while there might be another war at some point they would likely end up crippled with no way to replenish their weapons.
- hadees, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5That is only if Syra can be trusted in the long term. The Golan is a key strategic location. Syria has already once tried and cut off Israel's main supply of water from there. I don't trust dictators.
- monsieurginger, on 05/21/2008, -2/+6I'm all for the peace, but do people realize we are giving land to a dictator?
- IrishJoe, on 05/22/2008, -7/+1Bush: I told you that Barack Obama was a Nazi appeaser just like Neville Chamberlain. Why he aughta...wait...did you say Israel? Nevermind.
- dkapuchino, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Are you comparing the Syrians to the Nazis?
I'm pretty sure you've got that one wrong. The Nazis of today are the Shiites in Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqpHti7twCU
- dkapuchino, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Are you comparing the Syrians to the Nazis?
- foopirata, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1(wrong thread)
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by