Since 1974, there have been very few occasions in which we witnessed an exchange of fire on the Golan front. Syria has been completely deterred, and will never move a single soldier into now-Israeli soil. Why then should Israel give up land to a weak neighbour?
This is a reply to counter-argument #1
Hezbollah never denied that it was armed and trained by Iran. Syria is considered a “facilitator” shifting militants and equipment on its territories. It is definitely supplying Hezbollah with some of its arsenal but i highly doubt that the Syrians have the ability or efficiency to train such hardcore fighters as Hezbollah’s.
Moreover, the Syrian Army is a rag-tag army. It’s mandatory military service programme is sham. Recruits are slaving away at their officers’ homes and offices often running errands, cleaning and cooking. What kind of a fighting spirit is it fostering?
Another point, Israeli Air Force buzzed the Syrian Presidential Palace and then bombed an alleged nuclear reactor in the works. Where were the Syrian air defences? Where was the “retaliation” power this counter-argumentator claims?
“We shall strike at the right time, in the right place” That was Syria’s reply to both instances of Israel smashing through Syrian sovereign skies.
I would also like to laud counter-argument #2. It is indeed a very logical one. To be honest, i never quite thought about it. This kind of fresh arguments is exactly what we need to break through the stalemate.
What israel forgets is that the time of conventional wars is over,Missles can reach all parts of Israel , and the same people that have trained Hezbollah are sure training part of the syrian army, i dont think it is in the best interest of both countries to battle again because the consequences will be unbearable for both side’s, it is time that we get smarter and for both sides to take difficult positions and decisions, because in my opinion this area is coming to the death or peace Era and i vote for Peace.
Israel has shown a willingness to return land in exchange for a committed peace, as in the case of Egypt. The argument that the Golan/Israel border is the quietest is misleading. While it is true in the literal sense, Syria’s grievence at the loss of the Golan is one of the reasons for its support of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Syria is unwilling, and not suicidal enough, to engage in open conflict with Israel, but the proxy war it has launched through Hezbollah is not disconnected to its desire to see the Golan returned.
But Assad’s leadership faces a number of competing problems. He is a dictator and a member of an ethnic minority (Alawite) in his own country. Syria is one of the few Arab countries that is not an oil producer. The current US leadership is seen as relatively weak in its willingness to confront the growing regional power or Iran, which Assad must remain conscious of.
It would be impossible, politically, both internally and externally, for any Arab country to make peace with israel without strong US support. But to closely engage with the US would require an internal political and iseological shift within Syria that will take a great deal of time once that committment is made, and there is no indication that has yet happened.