Should Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace?

Should Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace?


  • Total voters
    43

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
#1
The Golan Heights is a territory between Israel and Syria which Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights

This territory was Arab-majority before 1967, but most of its Arab population fled in 1967 and this territory is now about half-Jewish and half-Arab (primarily Druze, I think). This territory is also very important strategically.

Anyway, do you think that Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace (like was proposed numerous times before)? Or do you think that Israel should permanently keep the Golan Heights?

Personally, I think that Israel should permanently keep the Golan Heights since Israel needs all of the living space that it can get for its rapidly growing population and since Israel's efforts to Judaize the Golan Heights have been much more successful than its efforts to Judaize the West Bank. I don't buy the strategic argument as much since, even if the Golan Heights were to return to Syria, Israel's technological superiority should still be more than enough to compensate for the strategic advantage that Syria would acquire as a result of reacquiring the Golan Heights.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,875
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#2
Technically there would be the problem to identify who rules over Syria.

Sure not Assad.

Russia?

Probably ...

Turkey and Iran are increasing their influence in the country [which is not more sovereign, this is a matter of fact].

So ... is Russia interested in Golan Heights? Considering the recent meeting between Putin and Netanyahu ... I tend to think that Moscow is not hostile with Israel.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,875
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#4
It does open the argument that Israel needs to start working on relations with Russia.
They are doing that ... in Syria, just to avoid accidents, there is even a military cooperation between Russian Army and IDF.

The point is the probability to pass from a technical and operative cooperation to a real political relation ...
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,843
US
#6
There's no guarantee any such peace would hold, ceding territory for an uncertain future would be a strategic mistake. Giving up any advantage by thinking I don't really need it is foolish.
That is my thought. If one could assure peace, yes. But we know nothing is assured. That is such a strategic piece of land. Doing so is like jumping off a 3 story building with the hope your adversary will catch you. Quite risky indeed.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
#7
That is my thought. If one could assure peace, yes. But we know nothing is assured. That is such a strategic piece of land. Doing so is like jumping off a 3 story building with the hope your adversary will catch you. Quite risky indeed.
Even if one could assure peace, there is still the issue of living space. Indeed, with its rapidly growing population, Israel needs all of the living space that it can get.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,624
Australia
#8
Even if one could assure peace, there is still the issue of living space. Indeed, with its rapidly growing population, Israel needs all of the living space that it can get.
This was the philosophy behind the territorial ambitions of a certain central European regime circa 1938.....annexing territory for lebensraum is a non-starter.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,843
US
#9
Even if one could assure peace, there is still the issue of living space. Indeed, with its rapidly growing population, Israel needs all of the living space that it can get.
That's a rough terrain for living. According to Wikipedia, only about 20,000 of over 750,000 Israeli settlers reside there. I don't believe this land is primarily, even secondarily, for settlement. It is a strategic land for defense of Israel's autonomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
17,807
SoCal
#10
This was the philosophy behind the territorial ambitions of a certain central European regime circa 1938.....annexing territory for lebensraum is a non-starter.
The difference, though, is that:

1. Israel has no desire to engage in genocide or mass ethnic cleansing.
2. Israel actually has a rapidly growing population--in contrast to Nazi Germany, which didn't have much success in boosting its birth rates.
3. Israel has already annexed the Golan Heights over 35 years ago. Indeed, it certainly isn't like it's a new territorial acquisition.
 

Similar History Discussions