.
Commentary;
Derch HaTeva (On an earthly level, In earthly terms or understanding) Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA emphasizes former head of Israel’s National Security Council Gen. (ret) Giora Eiland points regarding the dependability of Syrian president Bashar Assad’s word and the stability of his regime regarding negotiations with Syria and regarding the Golan Heights.
But, on a higher level, as with Jerusalem, as with Yehuda and Shomron, as with Gush Katif, if the B’nai Yisrael, or if the defense establishment takes it upon themselves to equivocate regarding our inalienable Divine right to the Golan, as an inseperable part of Eretz Yisrael, then what Divine right do we then have to ANY part of The Land?
But, lo there is a near complete blockage or breakdown in connection between the Spiritual, the Halachic, the historical Eretz Yisrael and these defense establishment types who, by virtue of their lack of education and lack of religiocity and spiritually, view that they owe their souls; their perks, priviledges and advancements to the corrupt, to the evolving post-Zionist protexia-class “politically correct” rather than to The One Above. MB
The Golan, Logic, and the Turkish Precedent, Dr. Aaron Lerner (IMRA)
Full Text;
“I do not know how to work out a security arrangement if Israel actually withdraws from the Golan Heights. To the best of my knowledge there is no solution to this. And in the absence of a solution to this matter, we could find ourselves in the situation that you are basing yourself only on the good will of the other side. And in the Middle East, with the kind of regime of Bashar Assad, and also with the problematic nature of that regime – that it could be replaced by a Sunni regime within a relatively short period of time, you are taking an unreasonable level of risk (AL: leaving the Golan) Gen. (ret) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council – Israel Radio interview – Evening news magazine 22 May 2008;
Unfortunately, Eiland has many former colleagues who suggest doing just that.
“The support of Israel’s defense establishment of the talks with Syria is based on the …view that when Assad gives his word he keeps it.”
Related report: Too Many Question Marks, Amos Harel (Haaretz)
Simply put, elites in the defense establishment support a deal with Syria on the basis of reasoning that has absolutely nothing to do with their area of expertise.
Many of these same people seriously erred in previous predictions regarding developments in the region in general and Syria in particular. But that doesn’t stop them from religiously supporting withdrawal from the Golan.
Many of them were convinced, for example, that Syria’s billions of dollars of unpaid bills to the Russian arms industry would prevent them from acquiring any substantial or significant new weapons systems for the foreseeable future. Oops. They were dead wrong.
Many of them cited various and sundry gizmos that could take the place of the Golan. Gizmos that have since been addressed by other gizmos.
And of course, many of them assumed absolute best case scenarios when
considering how post withdrawal security arrangements would play out in the event of an emergency. If nothing else, the Second Lebanon War sent an expensive reminder that reality rarely is the best case scenario.Is a peace treaty impossible without leaving the Golan?
Interestingly, the very same country acting as go between in the Syria-Israel talks, proved back at the end of 2004 that it is indeed possible for Syria to forego what it considers to be sovereign Syrian territory. As Channel 2’s analyst for Arab affairs, Ehud Ya’ari, asked Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul at a Jerusalem press conference in early January 2005: “Can Syria’s recognition last month of full Turkish sovereignty over the Hatay province (AL: aka Alexandretta) be seen as a precedent for the case of the Golan Heights?” Indeed.