It looks like Shaul Mofaz is openly declaring that the Golan Heights needs to stay exactly as it is right now: Under Israeli control.
Giving Syria the Golan Heights will mean bringing Iran there as well, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said overnight Monday after meeting in Washington with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
[…] “I can only say one thing about that: Due to the fact that there is a strengthening of the radical axis, and Syria is a very central and dominant component of the radical axis, any handover of the Golan Heights to them means Iranians in the Golan Heights.”
“We must take this under consideration, not as a statement that creates headlines, but as an issue that will become very tangible and real,” he added. “Just as today the Iranians have a foothold in southern Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip, they will have one in the Golan Heights.”
Yes.
“This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make peace with the Syrians in the future, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk to the Syrians, but in this reality the Golan Heights is a strategic asset for Israel and handing it over to the Syrians is tantamount to handing it to the Iranians.”
And yes again. Let’s not forget that Syria regularly attacked Israel from the Golan.
From 1948-67, when Syria controlled the Golan Heights, it used the area as a military stronghold from which its troops randomly sniped at Israeli civilians in the Huleh Valley below, forcing children living on kibbutzim to sleep in bomb shelters. In addition, many roads in northern Israel could be crossed only after probing by mine-detection vehicles. In late 1966, a youth was blown to pieces by a mine while playing football near the Lebanon border. In some cases, attacks were carried out by Yasir Arafat’s Fatah, which Syria allowed to operate from its territory.
Israel’s options for countering the Syrian attacks were constrained by the geography of the Heights. “Counterbattery fires were limited by the lack of observation from the Huleh Valley; air attacks were degraded by well-dug-in Syrian positions with strong overhead cover, and a ground attack against the positions…would require major forces with the attendant risks of heavy casualties and severe political repercussions,” U.S. Army Col. (Ret.) Irving Heymont observed.
Israel repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commission, which was charged with policing the cease-fire. For example, Israel went to the UN in October 1966 to demand a halt to the Fatah attacks. The response from Damascus was defiant. “It is not our duty to stop them, but to encourage and strengthen them,” the Syrian ambassador responded. Nothing was done to stop Syria’s aggression. A mild Security Council resolution expressing “regret” for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Israel was condemned by the UN when it retaliated. “As far as the Security Council was officially concerned,” historian Netanel Lorch wrote, “there was an open season for killing Israelis on their own territory.”
After the Six-Day War began, the Syrian air force attempted to bomb oil refineries in Haifa. While Israel was fighting in the Sinai and West Bank, Syrian artillery bombarded Israeli forces in the eastern Galilee, and armored units fired on villages in the Huleh Valley below the Golan Heights.
Sure. Let’s hand the Golan back to Syria. They’ve proven themselves eminently trustworthy. It’s not like they’re trying to build nuclear weapons on the sly or anything like that. Oh, wait. Yes they are.
A suspected Syrian reactor bombed by Israel had the capacity to produce enough nuclear material to fuel one to two weapons a year, CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Monday.
Hayden said the plutonium reactor was within weeks or months of completion when it was destroyed in an air strike last September 6, and within a year of entering operation it could have produced enough material for at least one weapon.
“In the course of a year after they got full up, they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons,” Hayden told reporters after a speech.
And then there’s this spin by the UN:
A diplomat close to the UN nuclear watchdog and outside analysts have said the US disclosure did not amount to proof of an illicit arms program because there was no sign of a reprocessing plant needed to convert spent fuel from the plant into bomb-grade plutonium.
Hm. Can we think of a country that Syria is currently allied with that would have the plant necessary to do the reprocessing once the Syrians had the nuclear fuel? Let’s think. Hm. Starts with “I” and ends with “ran.” That’s right. Iran. The same people who will show up in the Golan Heights if Israel gives it back now.