Israel (being in a stronger position) have more to gain than loosing , by making PEACE with Syria`s government, Iran and Lebanon.... BUT, Israeli PM wants to have Peace with Lebanese PM....because the PNAC KILLERS say so. PERIOD.
Leb. PM,"not Now thank you...." Assad wants Peace with Israel...., but Israeli PM " not now thank you" ...because the PNAC KILLERS say so. PERIOD. HOW NICE IT WOULD BE IF ALL OF THEM CAN SIT DOWN TOGETHER LIKE ADULTS , AND START SORTING OUT THEIR MESSY PROBLEMS ....without the PNAC KILLERS' Interfering in every aspect of our lives... Jews have been the victims of nationalism rooted in envy and the facile pursuit of scapegoats for centuries and centuries. In this context I find it very difficult to understand Israeli nationalism. For the sake of reason, good faith and long term self-interest MAKE PEACE WORK....before it's too late... Bashar Al-Assad is afraid to commit himself "publicly" for fear of a backlash from within... he is fully cognizant of the duplicity which his Father entertained in the "neighborhood" for three decades....and the weak-chinned Jr. ASSADs are still benefiting FULLY from this utter mechanized...duplicity, and want to keep it that way for three more decades... If there is one failure in Israel's history for which Golda Meir will not be forgotten, or forgiven, it is not the 1973 war, but the miscalculation that led to the war.
On February 4, 1971, Egypt's president Anwar Sadat expressed his willingness to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel in return for a complete withdrawal from Sinai. Golda rejected the offer scornfully, and Sadat, in response, said Egypt was willing to sacrifice a million soldiers to liberate its land. This statement was perceived as proof of the "real" intentions of the Egyptian president, as opposed to his offer of land for peace.
The change in Israel's stance came with the rise to power of Menachem Begin, in 1977, and stemmed from two main reasons: Begin was aware he lacked legitimacy among Israel's elites and the international community, because he was regarded as a nationalist.
Furthermore, his strategic-political views caused him to see, rightly from his point of view, the Palestinians, and not the Arab states, as the main enemy of the Jews.
So, when the Mossad learned that Sadat was willing to renew his 1971 initiative, Begin dispatched his foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, to Morocco for a meeting with the Egyptian deputy prime minister, Hassan Tuhami. The two met in September 1977 and agreed on the general framework of a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, an agreement that paved the way for Sadat's visit to Jerusalem and the peace agreement that followed.
That peace agreement, with all its problems, was the most significant victory for Zionism since the establishment of the state in 1948, and opened the way whose end has still not been reached to the acceptance of Israel as a legitimate political entity in the region, on the basis of the 1949 borders, not those determined by the UN Partition Plan. This agreement also set the formula for future agreements between Israel and the Arabs: land for peace.
While it is true that Ehud Barak, and even Benjamin Netanyahu, tried to further peace with Syria, Hafez Assad, the xenophobe, got cold feet as the talks moved toward the concluding stage. However, a great deal has changed, both in terms of Syria's geopolitics and in the condition of the ruling party, which relies on the Alawite minority. The end of Syria's hold over Lebanon not only undermined its prestige and its ability to maneuver politically vis-a-vis Israel but also the economic strength of the ruling sect, which relies on Lebanon's being a center of international drug trade.
The collapse of Iraq strengthened Iran, whose fundamentalist worldview is contrary to the secular inclination of the Syrian regime. Iran is becoming increasingly more powerful as a result of America's colossal strategic failure, which once more proved its utter lack of understanding of the essence of relations in the region. Proof of this is tagging Syria as part of the "axis of evil," instead of making the effort to encourage a Syrian-Israeli reconciliation as a counter to the rise of Islamic extremism.
Syria today lacks a real military option against Israel, but it can cause serious damage with its missile arsenal. To date, Syria has regarded this arsenal as serving a deterrent function, but could use the missiles out of desperation to break a status quo that has become unbearable, in a similar fashion to what Sadat did in 1973.
Bashar Assad knows that the only way he can stabilize his regime and take Syria forward is by an agreement with Israel, along the lines of the Egyptian model. Anyone who read the interview to Der Spiegel of August 29, 2005, in which Assad described Syrian society as "secular," could get a sense of his anxiety over Syria's possible deterioration into an Algerian-style civil war.
A peace accord with Syria will completely alter Israel's standing in the region and the world and will also influence the progress of reaching a solution with the Palestinians.
The way to get to that point is not through propagandist rhetoric, like the invitation Shimon Peres extended to Assad to visit Jerusalem. Someone like Peres knows full well that such a visit must be arranged in advance through talks like Dayan and Tuhami had, and that the invitation must come from the prime minister. Otherwise, we may find ourselves surprised once more.... And the "skeptics" will say the following, since they are not privy to the real deal....between the real ...."parties...": Egypt is no example of a successful peace treaty - it isn`t really peace, just not war. Egypt is still our enemy.
Nothing tells you that peace will last longer than Mubarak & we may come to regret giving back the Sinai when Islamic party comes to power in Egypt. As for Syria, we have no interest in withdrawal from the Golan, quite the contrary. A war with Syria might draw in the Iranians & enable us to deal with them as we eventually must. It`s war with Syria that`s in our interest, not "peace".... Making a deal with a government but not the people is a worry....? But does that automatically rule out trying? After all, what happens in Egypt once Mubarak dies? Or even in Jordan? There is no reason not to go along with Assad`s overtures and see where they lead. Looking for excuses to ignore him (and there will always be some) means that you simply don`t want to give up the land, that you find some comfort in an eternal state of war. Better the devil you know, eh Zadok?
Controversial position of Israel's origins and its role in the Middle East...
The PNAC agents in Israel and American Jewry are legions...with Shimon Perez on one side of the divide...and Netanyahu waiting in the wings, and BARAK still daydreaming and dumfounded...but are always wrong, and the recent war has not changed them for the better. Sadat risked it all for peace - so did King Hussein, Yet they say Assad - who constantly refers to the need to dismantle/destroy Israel - is the same as they were .... Fools like PNAC critics...consistently disregard what Israel`s enemies say - yet they have the gall to talk about surprises....
The Israeli left is constantly surprised - the Intifada was a surprise, the fact that Arafat continued to work toward Lebanon's and Israel`s destruction until he died was a surprise, the fact that Israel was weakened when it sneaked out of Lebanon at midnight and deserted its allies was a surprise, the fact that Gaza is turning into another Lebanon was a surprise, the fact that elimination of reservist training would make the IDF unable to fight effectively was a surprise....In conclusion, the appeasement left is always surprised.....and useless.
This analysis is fascinating and not least for its reminder - it's also virtually a plea to the current right of centre leadership- that it was Begin and not the left who began the practical and political articulation of land for peace, although Yitzhak Rabin was instrumental in the 90s..and OSLO, Jordan etc., until he was taken out by PNAC KILLERS , especially Netanyahu's monstrosities in laying the ground work for murdering Rabin...for CIA2.... To reprise it, demands a statesman of Begin`s caliber, one who out of Israeli self interest recognizes the need for a negotiated agenda between Israel and the rest of its neighbors.... The columns of newspapers are replete with bemoaners of the lack of Israeli leaders... of vision and also the nay sayers amongst whom are a few in the responses to this piece.
The question remains does Israel want to continue with another outbreak of hostilities that - involving Syrian missiles - would wreak more damage and loss of life to Israel? Or does it want a different future? Surely avoiding that is in Israel`s best interests....if PNAC is destroyed there is HOPE....
In geography, the core conflict is the return or not to the borders of 67, Eastern Jerusalem, occupation and annexations. Israel must return to the borders of 67 and should be happy if it is open for use of the holy places, the holy places must not be a part of Israel for visits to happen. A holy places treaty or whatever...is good for all. In psychology the core conflict is to decide, to wish something, to think positively, to love the neighbors as yourself. This is not just about Israelis amongst themselves, it is also about the Arabs around and in between. One state or two states, the demographic fear, Israel's angst, is nonsense. This is brain-dead nationalism of the 19th century, but notice that a two state solution, means the borders of 67. You decide, yes, yes, no, no, twilight is nothing, although it did serve Israel's daily needs well...for now, but the crux of the matter for Israel is to be able to control the borders of both states, Israel and future "Palestine" by Israeli military infrastructures in a centralized manner...in order to give real assurances to Israeli citizenry....and Arabs alike.
That's the crux....We have yet to hear from anybody as to what peace Syria is offering.... We hear on a regular basis what land they want....I truly believe that people here don`t realize or understand that "land" is a secondary issue for Israel, and peace is the primary one....A true offer of peace would understand the fears of giving up the heights, for psychological reasons if not tactical....While it`s true that rockets and missiles have changed the landscape it doesn't alter the fact that one man with an AK on the heights can make life hellish.....Those suggesting giving away the heights have never stood below and looked up......and those who are "in the know" should know better! It was Barak who got cold feet during the Syrian-Israeli talks, not Hafez al-Assad.... My sources on this include Barak`s lead negotiator, Gen. Uri Saguy. More on this can be found in the book, "The Truth About Camp David." amending comments to reflect what Barak`s own negotiators reveal....would be helpful for Israelis to make their own judgment about their actual Leaders...or lack thereof...
Baruch Kimmerling, who has died aged 67, was probably the first Israeli academic to analyze Zionism in settler- immigrant, colonialist terms. He described his homeland as being "built on the ruins of another society". A devoted atheist, he lamented Jews' and Arabs' failure to "separate religion from nationality". Though associated with the "new historians" who question the official narrative of Israel's creation, Kimmerling was a sociologist by training. In his book, The Interrupted System: Israeli Civilians in War and Routine Times (1985), he began anatomizing what he saw as the deleterious, if disguised, militarization of Israeli civil society. Challenging the notion of Israel as a beneficent "melting pot", he called on fellow citizens to embrace their multiple origins - Arab and Jewish, oriental and western, religious and secular.
In 1993, he co-wrote (with Joel Migdal) what Library Journal in the US called "the best descriptive treatment of the Palestinians to appear in decades". The book, Palestinians: The Making of a People, noted how Israel's victory in the six-day war of 1967 paradoxically reunited and politically revived Palestinians, and returned the Middle East conflict to its pre-1948 inter-communal cockpit.The book's publication coincided with the apparently successful Oslo peace accords. Ten years later, with the peace process in ruins, Kimmerling released his controversial Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War against the Palestinians. What began as a biography became an analysis of "a gradual but systematic attempt to cause Palestinians' annihilation as an independent social, political and economic entity".
To his adversaries Kimmerling was a tendentious polemicist who let ideological bias overrule academic sobriety and gave succor to Israel's foes. Yet he called himself a patriot, and while decrying the "monstrous practices of Zionism" he valued Israel's "islands of marvelous humanism and creativity". He feared that a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine dilemma would just cause further Balkanization and bloodshed in the Middle East, and he opposed boycotts of Israeli universities.Kimmerling lectured for nearly 40 years at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He also held a chair at Toronto University, and compiled textbooks for Israel's Open University. All his life he suffered the effects of childhood cerebral palsy. He was repeatedly hospitalized, had extreme difficulty speaking and spent his last three decades in a wheelchair. Despite his ailments, he enjoyed attending conferences and mentoring students. He wrote nine books, hundreds of essays and numerous newspaper articles.
Kimmerling was born in the Transylvanian border town of Turda, Romania. In 1944, Nazi pressure raised the specter of Jewish deportation. In an unpublished autobiography, Marginal in the Centre, he recalls how German aircraft strafed his family as they fled Turda on a Gypsy wagon. When war ended, the Kimmerlings returned to discover their property gone. Theirs was a bilingual household; his travelling salesman father spoke Romanian, his more literary mother, Hungarian. Realizing his talent, they hired a private tutor. In January 1952 the family left for Israel.After growing up in Netanya, Kimmerling entered the Hebrew University in 1963, taking his PhD 10 years later. In 1983 he expanded his doctoral findings to produce Zionism and Territory, now regarded, even by critics, as a seminal reformulation of Israeli sociology that places "the conflict" centre-stage. This work was followed by Zionism and Economy (1983), The Israeli State and Society: Boundaries and Frontiers (1989) and Palestinians (1993).
Kimmerling became ever more prolific as his illness worsened. His purview moved from institutional analysis to more cultural critiques, like The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society and the Military (2001). Two years later, he updated Palestinians as The Palestinian People: a History, to incorporate the effect of the Oslo agreement and the dilemmas facing Israel's Arab citizens.Kimmerling tracked social upheavals without pandering to the voguish. Invariably, he leavened scholarly prose with mordant humor. Hence his essay on independence day, wryly titled My Holiday, Their Tragedy. In Utopia Here and Now: The End of the Ashkenazi Hegemony (2001), he described subgroups fracturing and reshaping national identity. One such group are north African Jewish immigrants. Kimmerling's wife, Diana Aidan, whom he married in 1975, was born in Libya and grew up in Italy. She survives him, as do his three children.
