Inconsistency rules foreign policy!

First time I ever read Tom Friedman when he did not have a solution. (see 1 below.)

If you want to see hypocrisy and the inability of this administration to respond watch HTTP://WWW.Bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-beforeIraq.wmv

Then if you want to see how democracy works in Syria enter : SyriaElection2007e.pps

More Israeli technology capacity. (See 2 below.)

The Dutch seek to plug hole in their leaking diplomacy. (See 3 below.)

Saudi money continues to flow and create future terrorist cells. (See 4 below.)

In my brief review Michael Oren's recent book, I pointed out the conflictual inconsistent nature of our foreign policy driven by Arabist State Department thinking, commercial oil interests and a desire by Constitutionalists to bring democracy and freedom to The Middle East. It appears, based on Caroline Glick's assessment, the administration has not/cannot form a coherent policy. (See 5 below.)

Daniel Pipes discusses legal issues in fighting terrorism. (See 6 below.)

Dore Gold questions cedeing Golan. (See 7 below.)

Finally, if you care about Democracy and freedom then watch Netanyahu tell the Brits they had better get their own act together. They did it wrong once before and are following the same Chamberlain path again. (HTTP://www.omneJerusalem.org/blog/archives/2007/05/watch benjamin.asp

Dick

1) By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The Middle East has gotten itself tied into such an impossible knot that Biblical references or Shakespearian quotations simply don't suffice anymore to describe how impossibly tangled politics has become here. Shira Wolosky, a Hebrew University English scholar, suggested to me that maybe Dr. Seuss, in "The Cat in the Hat," offered the best way to sum up the Middle East today.

Then he shut the Things

in the box with the hook.

And the cat went away

With a sad kind of look.

"That is good," said the fish.

"He has gone away. Yes.

but your mother will come.

She will find this big mess!

And this mess is so big

And so deep and so tall,

we can not pick it up.

There is no way at all!"

Just look around. Gaza is turning into Mogadishu . Hamas is shelling Israel . Israel is retaliating. Iraq is a boiling pot. Iran is about to go nuclear. Lebanon is being pulled apart. Syria is being investigated for murdering Lebanon 's prime minister. I could go on. Yes, this mess is so big and so tall. Who knows where to pick it up at all?
In Israel, officials are mulling all alternatives -- from the Saudi peace initiative to negotiating with Hamas to opening talks with Syria to reoccupying Gaza to looking for a "trustee" for the West Bank -- because no one is sure anymore what to do.

That is, the Left's way -- land for peace -- was discredited by the collapse of Oslo . The Right's way, permanent Israeli occupation of all "The Land of Israel," was made impossible by Palestinian demographics and two uprisings. The third way, unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza , has been discredited by Hezbollah's attack from Lebanon and the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza .

" Israel is in a place it has never been before," said Moshe Halbertal, a Hebrew University philosophy professor. "It does not have a picture of where to go and how, so people are looking for a fourth way."

It is impossible to predict what that fourth way will be. But it is easy to identify the new realities it will have to take into account.

First is the fact that Yasir Arafat's Fatah group, which has long dominated Palestinian life, is in disarray. Fatah will not disappear, but it will never again totally dominate the Palestinian Authority. Fatah will have to share power with Hamas, which has largely wiped out Fatah in Gaza already. Sooner or later, the U.S. and Israel are going to have to drop the economic sanctions they imposed on Palestinians to pressure Hamas into recognizing Israel . "As repulsive as [Hamas] is to me as an Israeli, I don't think it's coming to the Palestinian Authority just to pay a visit -- it is here to stay," said Israeli TV's top Arab affairs reporter, Ehud Yaari.

Israel 's real choice is between dealing with a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority or watching it collapse into little pieces, which Israel would have to pick up. (Think Iraq and Somalia .) West Bank and Gaza unemployment is now around 40 percent. Talking with Palestinians in Ramallah, the phrase I heard most was not "Israeli occupation" but "Palestinian disintegration."

Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki told me that as bad as things are today, his polls show most Palestinians still don't blame Hamas. They blame Israel and America for withholding funds from the Hamas government that Palestinians elected. The best way to diminish Hamas's influence, or to moderate it, is by forcing it to assume responsibility. Ask it: "Do you want Palestinians to be able to work in Israel ? Then sit down with Israel and work out the details." We need to "force Hamas through a corridor of difficult decisions," said Israeli strategist Gidi Grinstein. If America can talk to Iran , Israel can talk to Hamas.

Second, Hamas says it will only offer Israel a long-term cease-fire. Fine, take it. Fact No. 1: the real history of Israeli-Arab relations is: war, lull, war, lull, war, lull -- from 1948 until today. Fact No. 2: "Since 1948," said Mr. Yaari, "the Jews have always made better use of the lulls than the Arabs." Israel doesn't need Hamas's recognition. It needs a long lull.

The third new reality is that Hamas's shelling of Israel from Gaza means Israel can never hand over the West Bank to the Palestinians, without an international trustee -- because from there Palestinians could close Israel's airport with one rocket. Only Jordan , or an international force, can be that trustee.

Bottom line: I don't know if there is a fourth way, but, if there is, it will have to include these new realities. Otherwise, this mess will get even bigger, deeper and taller.

2)Successful launch Monday of Ofeq-7 imaging satellite, Israel acquires an essential intelligence asset for any war contingency
Ofeq-7 was launched westward over the Mediterranean by the home-made Shavit three-stage solid fuel vehicle from the Palmachim aerospace base at 02:15 IT, June 11. The first images should be received by Tuesday night.

Military sources report that the launching was part of a seven-day US-Israeli air exercise taking place this week in the Negev which, though presented officially as a routine practice, reflects wide expectations of a Middle East war this summer.

Israel thus launched the 300 kg Ofeq-7 in mock war conditions, displaying a cutting-edge capability reserved to the US and Russia.

Its successful deployment in low Earth orbit was anxiously awaited as strategically essential after the failure of the Ofeq-6 test last September. Joining the ageing, five-year old Ofeq-5, the new platform fills the gap in the coverage of distant high-priority areas in the Middle East including Iran.

The military importance of the Shavit’s successful performance as a deterrent to Iran’s missile threats cannot be overstated. It means that Israeli rockets can be relied on to reach any part of Iran.

Earlier this year, as Syria and Iran built up their missile arsenals, Israel quietly accelerated its military space program with three successful launches in February and March under a news blackout. Russia too reacted by placing a new Cosmos spy satellite in an orbit for keeping a close watch on the Middle East including Israel, Iran and the Gulf.

Work is being advanced at Israel’s Air Industry on the TechSAR radar-operated all-weather platform, Ofeq-8 and a new type of satellite called only Ofeq-Next. Israeli defense officials are in talks with US Spacecom for supplementing the Amos-4 communications satellite still to be launched with military capabilities.

3) Netherlands seek larger role in resolving Mideast conflict
By Cnaan Lipshitz

Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, will visit Israel Monday, bringing the message to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert the Hague wishes to play a more central role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Before the minister's visit to the region began, however (Monday he will be in Egypt), it took an awkward turn, as 52 senior Dutch figures demanded on Saturday their government recognize Hamas and "apply more pressure against Israel, to restore the international community's credibility."

Last week, former Dutch prime minister Dries Van Agt, who co-signed the petition, demanded that Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen "denounce not only attacks by Palestinians on Israelis, but also terrorist actions by the Israeli occupation army, which result in the death of so many Palestinians.

The signatories also include Hans van den Broek, who served as foreign minister for 11 years, before his appointment in 1993 as European commissioner for foreign relations. Both he and Van Agt belong to Verhagen's center-right ruling party, the CDA.

The petition appeared in several daily papers, and featured signatures of many other opinion shapers from across the political board. "The government must help break the impasse. With the Arab League," the petition read. In addition, the document included an implicit demand that Holland recognize Hamas: "The Netherlands must engage in dialogue with all the relevant parties."

Meanwhile, a Dutch Jewish organization last week arranged for parliament to hear two Palestinian teenagers who asked for the Netherlands to "intervene to stop the horrors of occupation." Jaap Hamburger, from "A Different Jewish Voice" (Een Ander Joods Geluid), told parliament that Israel acts as if it has "received a blank check, which it uses to violate human rights and international law."

Against this backdrop, another organization, Christians for Israel, decided to allocate $50,000 for the building of shelters in Sderot, for protection from Palestinian Qassam rockets.

4) SAUDI MONEY FINANCES MOSQUES IN N. AFRICA

Saudi Arabia has been funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to establish Wahabi mosques and schools in North Africa. Officials said Saudi princes and those close to the ruling family have been pouring money into the construction of mosques, schools and charities in such countries as Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. They said the Saudi funding, joined by those in other Gulf Cooperation Council states, was
encouraged by the government in Riyad and meant to increase the kingdom's
influence in North Africa.

"Saudi foreign policy is primarily the promotion of the Wahabi doctrine," an
official said. "It's problematic because the path from Wahabi doctrine to Al
Qaida philosophy is quite short."

Officials said the United States has been monitoring the flow of funds, but
has not relayed any protest to Saudi Arabia or other GCC states. They said
the Gulf funds aimed to establish a Wahabi network in North Africa that
would train Muslim clerics and teachers.

5) Bush administration forcing Israel to endanger itself
By Caroline B. Glick



Ahead of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's trip to the White House on June 19, the Bush administration is pressuring Israel to endanger itself on at least two fronts.

First the Americans are pressuring the Olmert government to agree to Palestinian Authority and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas's request to bring millions of bullets, thousands of Kalashnikov assault rifles, RPGs, anti-tank missiles and armored personnel carriers into Gaza from Egypt.

The government has yet to respond to the request. Those who oppose it argue that Fatah forces in Gaza are too weak and incompetent to battle Hamas forces and so any weaponry transferred to Fatah militias will likely end up in Hamas's hands.

This logic is correct, but incomplete. It is true that Fatah forces are unwilling and presumably unable to defeat Hamas forces. But it is also true that Fatah forces use their arms to attack Israel. So even if there was no chance of Hamas laying its hands on the weapons, allowing Fatah to receive them would still endanger Israel.

The same limited logic informs Israel's strenuous objection to the Pentagon's intention to sell Saudi Arabia Joint Direct Attack Munition satellite-guided "smart bombs" or JDAMS. The government claims that while it has no truck with the Saudis, it fears for the stability of the regime. If the House of Saud falls, Osama bin Laden would get the bombs.

Yet like Fatah, the Saudis aren't simply vulnerable. They are culpable. In addition to being the creators of al Qaida and Hamas's largest financial backers, the Saudis themselves directly threaten Israel.

In direct contravention of their commitment to the US, (and the US's commitment to Israel), the Saudis have deployed F-15 fighter jets at Tabuk air base located 150 km from Eilat. On May 13th, the Saudi Air Force held an air show at Tabuk for the benefit of King Abdullah and senior princes where the F-15s where ostentatiously shown.

The timing of the show was interesting. It took place the day before Abdullah hosted Vice President Richard Cheney at Tabuk.

The administration is not just asking Israel to facilitate the arming of its enemies. It is also placing restrictions on Israel's ability to arm itself. As The Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, the Pentagon has yet to respond to Israel's request to purchase the F-22 stealth bomber. Moreover, the US seems to be torpedoing Israel's acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Pentagon recently voiced its objection to Israel's plan to install Israeli technology in the jets that are to be supplied starting in 2014. Israel's installation of its own electronic warfare systems in its F-16s and F-15s is how it has managed to maintain the IAF's qualitative edge over Arab states that have also purchased the aircraft.

The administration's hostility towards Israel is unfortunately not an aberration. It is the result of a policy shift within the administration which occurred immediately after the Republican Party's defeat in the Congressional elections last November.

After the Republican defeat, the administration embraced former secretary of state James Baker's foreign policy paradigm which is based on the belief that it is possible and desirable to reach a stable balance of power in the Middle East. As Baker sees it, the balance can be reached by forcing Israel to shrink to its "natural" proportions and assisting supposedly moderate and stable states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to grow into their "natural" proportions. Once the states of the region (including Syria and Iran which Baker wishes to appease) have settled into their proper proportions, stability will be ensured.

Baker fleshed on his view in the Iraq Study Group's recommendations which were published immediately after the elections. Although President George W. Bush rejected the ISG's recommendations, the day after the elections he sacked defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and replaced him with Robert Gates who served on the ISG. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is a disciple of Baker's ally former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft.

The problem with the Baker paradigm is that it has never been borne out by reality. It collapsed during the Cold War both as the Soviet Union worked tirelessly to destabilize countries allied with the US and when the states of East-Central Europe revolted against the teetering empire and gained their freedom with its collapse.

In the 1990s, Baker's stability paradigm failed to foresee the post-nationalist movements that swept through Western Europe and the Muslim world and embraced the Soviet goal of weakening the US. Baker still denies the phenomenon and ignores its policy implications.

Today, the notion that stability is a realistic aim is even more far fetched. Specifically, the willingness of Muslim secularists to form strategic relations with jihadists and the willingness of Shiites to form strategic partnerships with Sunnis was unimaginable twenty years ago. Aside from that, the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran throws a monkey wrench into any thought of regional stability. A look around the region shows just how absurd Baker's notions truly are.

In Lebanon today, Fatah al Islam, which is apparently allied with al Qaida, is fighting the Lebanese army in a bid to bring down the Siniora government at the behest of its sponsor — the secular Ba'athist regime in Damascus. Fatah al Islam is also aligned with Hizbullah, which shares its goal of bringing down the Lebanese government and with Iran which gives the Syrians their marching orders.

This state of affairs is also the name of the game in Iraq where Iran and Syria support both Muqtada al Sadr's Shiite Mehdi army and al Qaida's Sunni death squads. It repeats itself in Afghanistan where Iran is arming the Taliban and in the Palestinian Authority.

Furthermore, the paragons of moderation and stability in Egypt and Saudi Arabia which Baker and his followers are so keen to strengthen are neither stable nor moderate. Both Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah are old men of uncertain health. To "stabilize" their regimes they wrought unholy alliances with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahabis which are the only forces in Egyptian and Saudi societies that have not been flattened under their jackboots.

This week Channel 10 reported that the Bush administration recently informed Israel and the Gulf states that it has no intention of launching military strikes against Iran's nuclear installations. The Americans explained that they need Iranian assistance in stabilizing Iraq to pave the way for an American withdrawal from the country before Bush leaves office. Under Baker's regency, the administration apparently now subscribes to the belief that they will be better off out of Iraq with a nuclear-armed Iran than in Iraq without a nuclear-armed Iran.

For their part, the Arabs have demonstrated clearly that they do not share the administration's newfound faith that a nuclear-armed Iran will reach a stable equilibrium in a Bakeresque Middle Eastern balance of powers. Their stated aim to build nuclear reactors is a clear sign that they recognize the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. The administration's support the Arabs' quest for nuclear reactors makes clear that it is now willing to have a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race.

This brings us back to Israel, which is situated smack in the middle of the regional chaos. How is Israel contending with this threatening state of affairs?

For its part, the IDF seems to be contending with it fairly well, at least with regard to Syria and Lebanon. The IDF's decision have television crews film IDF soldiers fighting in mock-up Syrian villages this week, like Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi's announcement that the IDF is prepared to fight on two fronts simultaneously are signs that the IDF recognizes that its only safe bet is to prepare for all contingencies. Were the IDF to complement these actions with warnings to Iran and operational plans to attack Iran's nuclear installations and distribute gas masks to the public, the General Staff would go a long way towards proving that it is adopting the only reasonable strategic posture available given the cards Israel has been dealt.

Yet not only is the IDF not warning Iran, the Olmert government is undermining the IDF's correct posture towards Syria and Lebanon. Indeed, on every front, including towards Israel itself, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has himself adopted Baker's failed paradigm.

Rather than publicly explain that in light of Syria's position as an Iranian client state in Lebanon, Iraq and Israel, there is nothing for Israel to talk to Syria about, Wednesday Olmert announced that he wishes to open negotiations on the Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights with the Syrians.

The Syrians for their part cornered Olmert Thursday by agreeing to his offer. As Karl Moor and David Rivkin explained Thursday in The Jerusalem Post, it is not true, as Olmert and his minions claim that Israel has nothing to lose by negotiating with Syria. Given Israel's perceived weakness in the wake of last summer's war and Syria's perceived strength, speaking to Syria about an Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights will only encourage Syrian belligerence.

And as with the Syrians, so too with the Palestinians, the Olmert government acts as Baker's water boy. Rather than waging a rational military campaign to defeat the jihadist front that has seeded itself in Gaza, Olmert issues near daily statements telling the Palestinians that Israel will cause them no harm. He defends this policy by declaiming on the importance of strengthening the "stability" of the Palestinian Authority.

Then there is the daily brown nosing Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni engage in towards the Egyptians and Saudis. Israel praises both as "moderates" while Egypt vows publicly not to take action to stop the transfer of weapons from Sinai to Gaza and the Saudis bankroll Hamas and demand that Israel implement their "peace plan" which calls for Israel's destruction.

Yet all of this incompetent bumbling pales in comparison to Israel's weakness towards Iran. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz's assertion this week to the Post that he does not "think it is right today to talk about military options" towards Iran because he thinks that sanctions can still convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear ambitions comes dangerously close to an Israeli collapse in the face of an existential threat. The fact that Mofaz made this statement the same week that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had crossed the nuclear threshold only exacerbates the perception of Israeli strategic disarray.

Sooner or later the US will pay a price for the Bush administration's decision to embrace the delusion of stability as its strategic goal. With jihadist forces growing stronger around the globe, if the Americans leave Iraq without victory, there is no doubt that Iraq (and Iran and Syria) will come to them. But whatever the consequences of America's behavior for America, the price that Israel will pay for embracing Baker's myths of stability will be unspeakable.

6) Islamists in the Courtroom
by Daniel Pipes

The decision last week by the Islamic Society of Boston to drop its lawsuit against 17 defendants, including counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson, gives reason to step back to consider radical Islam's legal ambitions.



The envisioned $22 million Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.

The lawsuit came about because, soon after ground was broken in November 2002 for the ISB's $22 million Islamic center, the media and several non-profits began asking questions about three main topics: why the ISB paid the city of Boston less than half the appraised value of the land it acquired; why a city of Boston employee, who is also an ISB board member, fund raised on the Boston taxpayer's tab for the center while traveling in the Middle East; and the ISB's connections to radical Islam.

Under this barrage of criticism, the ISB in May 2005 turned tables on its critics with a lawsuit accusing them of defamation and conspiring to violate its civil rights through "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive the Plaintiffs … of their basic rights of free association and the free exercise of religion."

The lawsuit roiled Bostonians for two long years, and Jewish-Muslim relations in particular. The discovery process, while revealing that the defendants had engaged in routine newsgathering and political disputation, and had nothing to hide, uncovered the plaintiff's record of extremism and deception. Newly aware of its own vulnerabilities, the ISB on May 29 withdrew its lawsuit with its many complaints about "false statements," and it did so without getting a dime.

Why should this dispute matter to anyone beyond the litigants?

The Islamist movement has two wings, one violent and one lawful, which operate apart but often reinforce each other. Their effective coordination was on display in Britain last August, when the Islamist establishment seized on the Heathrow airport plot to destroy planes over the Atlantic Ocean as an opening for it to press the Blair government for changes in policy.

A similar one-two punch stifles the open discussion of Muhammad, the Koran, Islam, and Muslims. Violence causing hundreds of deaths erupted against The Satanic Verses, the Danish cartoons, and Pope Benedict, creating a climate of fear that adds muscle to lawsuits such as the ISB's. As Mr. Emerson noted when the Muslim Public Affairs Council recently threatened to sue him for supposed false statements, "Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics."

Such lawsuits, including the ISB's, are often predatory, filed without serious expectations of winning, but initiated to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Such plaintiffs seek less to win than to wear down the researchers and analysts who, even when they win, pay heavily in time and money. Two examples:

*

Khalid bin Mahfouz v Rachel Ehrenfeld: Ehrenfeld wrote that Bin Mahfouz had financial links to Al-Qaeda and Hamas. He sued her in January 2004 in a plaintiff-friendly British court. He won by default and was awarded £30,000 and an apology.
*

Iqbal Unus v Rita Katz: His house searched in the course of a American government operation, code-named Green Quest, Unus sued Ms Katz, a non-governmental counterterrorist expert, charging in March 2004 that she was responsible for the raid. Mr. Unus lost and had to pay Ms Katz's court costs.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations began a burst of litigiousness in 2003 and announced ambitious fundraising goals for this effort. But the collapse of three lawsuits, in particular the one against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR, seems by April 2006 to have prompted a reconsideration. Frustrated in the courtroom, one CAIR staffer consoled himself that "education is superior to litigation."

This retreat notwithstanding, Islamists clearly hope, as Douglas Farah notes, that lawsuits will cause researchers and analysts to "get tired of the cost and the hassle and simply shut up." Just last month, KinderUSA sued Matthew Levitt, a specialist on terrorist funding, and two organizations, for his assertion that KinderUSA funds Hamas. One must assume that Islamists are planning future legal ordeals for their critics.

Which brings me to an announcement: The Middle East Forum is establishing a "Legal Project" to protect counterterror and anti-Islamist researchers and analysts. Their vital work must not be preempted by legal intimidation. In the event of litigation, they need to be armed with sufficient funding and the finest legal representation.

7)Before ceding the Golan: Some urgent questions before Israel folds on the Golan Heights
by Dore Gold


By starting with a statement that Israel will pay the price for peace with Syria, as reported in Friday's Yedioth Ahronoht, the Israeli leadership is strongly hinting that it is willing to withdraw completely from the Golan Heights. The Israeli public deserves answers to several critical questions before these proposals to Syria go forward.



1. Everyone knows that the Syrian regime is completely isolated and facing an international tribunal that will investigate its role in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria needs these negotiations to get out the predicament it faces--in other words. Israel has a great deal of leverage, and certainly does not have to agree to full withdrawal. Under such circumstances why should Israel signal that it is willing to consider a full withdrawal.



2. Moreover, in 1975, President Gerald Ford wrote to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that the US would "give great weight to Israel remaining
מודעה

on the Golan Heights." This US commitment was repeated by Secretary of State James Baker to Prime Minsiter Yitzhak Shamir in 1991, right before the Madrid Peace conference, and by Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, right before negotiations began over Hebron. And, even if Israel wishes to test Syrian intentions through negotiations, why start with a complete collapse of Israel's negotiating position. :



3. If the government seeks to come down from the Golan Heights, is it certain that it can achieve any of the "security arrangements" suggested in the past. Remember back in October 1973, Israel deployed 177 tanks against 1400 on the Syrian side. How does Israel plan to address these kind of asymmetries that still exist? Does the government believe that it can push most of Syria's armored formations behind Damascus, from their current deployment zone between Damascus and the Golan? If the Syrians are unwilling to agree to these arrangements then the Israeli government cannot provide the alternatives to the Golan Heights that were advanced by those who advocated withdrawal in the 1990's.



4. An alternative model for security without the Golan Heights requires a huge expenditure by the US for high technology weaponry for the IDF. Has anyone checked whether the US is prepared to significant increase aid to Israel when it has been cut over the last ten years? Will the US fund peace arrangements with the country that has been aiding al-Qaeda to support the insurgency in Iraq? Do we have assurances that before the start of negotiations, Syria will stop hosting terrorist groups killing Israelis and our American allies?



5. And what is the actual line of withdrawal? Syria claims the June 4, 1967 line which gives it the northeastern shore the Kinneret. In the 1950's, when the Syrian encroached on the Kinneret shoreline, they formally claimed its waters as well. During the Barak government, the Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara hinted at his willingness to compromise this point, only to be rebuked by Hafiz al-Assad. Has somebody done his homework this time and checked?



6. Most importantly, what is driving the government to do this? Is there a demographic problem on the Golan Heights? No.



In fact, the Golan has been in Israel's hands more years than it has been in Syria's hands. In the last ten years there has been a tendency to experiment with the security of Israel though all kinds of initiatives, without any serious staff work. The results have been disastrous. It is time to be serious and stop experimenting with Israel's future.