Should Israel have a peace with Syria?

@shay3434 (882)
Israel
June 8, 2008 11:58am CST
On the one hand. Syria is one of the most evil countries in the world. They support terror and are responsible for death of many innocent people all over the world. On the second hand, a peace might bring quiet to the borders and there will be no more blood. What do you think? Israel should have a peace with Syria or not?
2 people like this
5 responses
@clrumfelt (5425)
• United States
8 Jun 08
I think any time two nations are at peace with each other it is a good thing, but if that peace comes at the unreasonable expense of one of the nations, the nation being squeezed should instead stand up and fight for its interests instead of making peace. Time and again this has happened between Israel and its neighbors, promising peace for Israel giving up its land, then promising peace for Israel to give up more land, and so on, and so on... I say no bargaining for peace. They should agree not to be at war and quit lobbing missiles at each other. Period.
@shay3434 (882)
• Israel
9 Jun 08
Hi! I think you're right and Syria should agree to have peace without bargain. Unfortunately, the Arab world will agree to stop the hostility only after he will take more and more from Israeli land until we have nothing.
• United States
9 Jun 08
I tend to agree with clrumfelt. Peace is generally better than war, and if the peace is observed--well, we are none of us in position to establish the type of government we prefer in another country. Neither Egypt nor Jordan has a perfect record. Yet Israel lives in peace with both. Moreover, both have improved their conduct in part because those peace treaties are in place. None of this means Israel should not remain vigilant.
• United States
9 Jun 08
They should not have peace with a country like Syria that wants to destroy Isreal. Syria supports Hamas and Hezballoh who are also supported by Iran.
@tigertang (1750)
• Singapore
9 Jun 08
Well, it depends on who benefits from peace. Most Israeli's want peace. I think most Syrians want peace. But I don't think the political leadership on either side would want it. Basher needs a hostile Israel to justify why he's not made any improvements to the economy and thus the livlihood of the average Syrian, despite the fact that Syria has allot going for it. Israel's politicians get away with not signing the NPT (we neither admit or denny we have nukes even though the rest of the world knows we have them) and using cluster bombs, which are banned by everyone else but legitimate for Israel because it needs to kill off a couple of Anti-Semetic Terrorist who happen to be Semites. Without Syria snarling at them, how could Israel's politicians justify the things that they do in the name of fighting Anti-Semitic Semites? So with this combination, nobody actually wants to have peace. Basher will continue in his ways as will Olmert. Occasionally both sides will kick the Lebanese where it hurts to kick the other side without actually doing so. However, if Americans would actually read Israeli Newspapers instead of the anti-Semitic stuff comming out of AIPEC, they might actually realise that Israel making peace with Syria is a brilliant strategic move and it might, horror of horrors actually cut off the more radical elements in the Middle East, thus making life more stable for everyone. If you isolate Syria from Iran, they'll have to turn to the Gulf Arab States for support. While no angles, the Gulf Arabs are US allies, and by definition more willing to make peace with Israel - please note - the Arab League has offered Israel diplomatic recognition if it returns to the 1967 borders - which the clowns in AIPEC seem oblivious to. You can, shock of shocks, reign in Hezbollah in Lebanon, if you have peace with Syria. But then again, do Israeli leaders and their Syrian counterparts want to do all that? Yes, Israel should keep its military presence strong and it can do so without the Golan Heights, which incidentally only the Anti-Semites in AIPEC recognise as Israeli territory. There are risk in cutting a deal with Syria. But then given that current solutions as provided by AIPEC are clearly going nowhere, isn't it time one tries something new?
@liranlgo (5748)
• Israel
8 Jun 08
hi shay, to my opinion it really depend how you define "peace". sure i want what you described: quiet in the borders and no more blood, but the real question is what israel is ready to sacrifice in order to have this peace. i do want peace with Syria, but not in any cost. i am not ready to give away the Golan for this peace.
@shay3434 (882)
• Israel
9 Jun 08
Hi Liran! Thanks for your comment. I love the Golan like you are, and I hope Ehud Olmert won't give up on our lands so easily. I think that if we let Syria the Golan for peace, our condition will be even worse than without peace.
• India
8 Jun 08
No. Never trust a country that still actively supports terror. If Syria would go the way of Jordan or Egypt then fine, again no barter of land for peace, first peace and then peace....
@shay3434 (882)
• Israel
9 Jun 08
Hello! Thanks for your comment. I support what you said. A country that still actively supports terror shouldn't be accepted by Israel. This is why we could never get into peace with the palestinians when the Hamas rules Gaza.
• Romania
11 Jun 08
I don't believe it's right to characterize an entire country as evil. It would be characterizing all the population as being evil. But the government is serving evil. I believe Israel should make peace with Syria but not at the cost of surrendering our territories.