I'm currently touring Israel with several of my grown-up children (we're visiting my oldest daughter, who presently lives and works here). Right now we're driving around the Golan Heights and northern Israel, and we're staying a couple or three miles from the border with Lebanon. This is a fascinating area, well off the beaten track for most pilgrimage tourists, but one which gives valuable insight into what makes Israel tick, together with a more general insight into the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Two miles from where we're staying is Kyriat Shmona, where over a thousand Hezbollah rockets landed during the 2006 Lebanon War.
Yesterday we drove up Mount Bental, taking photos into Syria just a stone's throw away with Damascus some forty miles away, before spending some time in the Druze town of Madjal Shams on the slopes of Mount Hermon (various new houses being built here). From time to time you encounter the odd relic of the 1967 Six Day War (an abandoned tank here, painted in gaudy colours and sporting and Israeli flag, or a more sombre memorial remembring the Israeli war dead over there). Today we visited the border town of Metula, a stone's throw from Lebanon (we photographed a UNIFIL tank and vehicles patrolling the border, compete with UN initials and emblems). Yet despite being in one of the world's tensest conflict zones, for now all seems peaceful. It is a beautiful area, with scenic views from the mountains which are so militarily strategic. One is also struck by the intense amount of agriculture on the Israeli side,whether by idealisic kibbutniks, or the Druze orchards producing goods which apparently they can export to Syria. For many Israelis here existence seems to represent a form of resistance, driven by idealism in the face of danger. Why else would anyone set up home a stone's throw from nations intent on your destruction? One is also struck by how this area is so central to Israel's security - overlooking the country's Galilee basin and water supply as it does - and I can't see how the country will ever give up land for peace as long as there are Iranian proxies based right on her borders in Lebanon or Gaza, or with Syria right next door, particularly when giving up land in Lebanon or Gaza failed so dismally. Seeing the terrain here one begins to appreciate much more fully Israel's obsession with security and how this must be addressed before there can be any chance of land swaps.
18 comments:
I hate to pick you up on this (well, actually, in my nerdiness I'm very happy to point out mistakes), but it appears you were 'touring' in Israel and occupied Syria.
Secondly, you say the area is very tense (and perhaps you were describing only the Lebanese portion of the border) but Syria's border with Israel is by far Israel's quietest border.
Third, you say, 'this area is so central to Israel's security - overlooking the country's Galilee basin and water supply as it does - and I can't see how the country will ever give up land for peace as long as there are Iranian proxies based right on her borders in Lebanon or Gaza, or with Syria right next door'.
Doesn't it occur to you that that water supply is vital to Syria's needs, and that Syria has been suffering a severe famine in the last five years at least in part because one of the major water sources in its sovereign territory is under occupation? Why see it only from an Israeli point of view?
Hi Philip, trust you are well. Glad you made it out safely.
Surely you're not saying this is not one of the the world's most sensitive areas? I photographed the UNIFIL tanks along the Lebanese border. But you are quite right about parts of the border... the Druze seemed to be doing well and relatively happy. A very different situation from what I was led to believe and so wanted to check out for myself.
I was touring on one side of the border (I'm not allowed on the other simply because I visited Israel). But I'll gladly look at the other point of view when Syria has rid itself of a maniacal g't which to date has killed 3000+ of its own. It proves somewhat Israel could never make peace with these (what was the term used?) "crooks".
PS I looked up famine in Syria but found nothing related to the Golan. All I found was this (published by Al-Arabiya) blaming Syrian authoritarianism for past famines:
http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2011/06/08/152382.html
Apologies, I meant 'drought'.
I've been on both sides of the border. (There are ways and means to get onto both sides...)
Really, though, Israel has far more trouble policing its borders with Lebanon, Jordan and Israel than it does with Syria. Until this year there hadn't been an incident for years.
I admit that I'm probably by now immune to white UN vehicles, even tanks.
I think also you might consider a more charitable view towards Syrians. You won't try to see their point of view until they get rid of the Ba'ath - it's like a double whammy. I for one long for the day that I can travel back to a free Syria without the murderous brand of socialism it has endured. But bringing the Syrian regime into the picture seems like a tactic to distract from the issues at hand. The particular government doesn't change notions of justice in international law, nor does it change that Syrian people need a supply of water.
I do have charitable views towards Syrians. There's a young Syrian I chat with quite often in my local coffee shop. We talk a lot about Syrian politics, culture, people. It's just the g't I don't like (pity it took the current situation for many to see exactly what kind of g't it is). Also, I think Israel might act more charitably if there was a proper g't there.
Bringing the Syrian regime into the picture seems like a tactic to distract from the issues at hand.
This seems a strange thing to say. How? Why? Justice in the Middle East will only come with security. That's why, despite attempts to portray it otherwise, it is an Arab-Israeli, Middle-East crisis (not just an Israeli-Palestinian one).
Concerning water, yes, a great pity the Syrians attacked Israel and lost the region. Yet another example of how the g't there has let its people down. You started off by saying I only see it from one point of view, but perhaps one could say the same of you.
You didn't accept my comment about drought?
I'm so one-sided that I've taken the trouble to travel to all the concerned countries. I've seen those borders from each and every side.
On going to Syria / Lebanon with an Israeli stamp in your passport, there are three options:
(1) Ask the Israelis not to stamp your passport in the first place (which they usually do).
(2) Apply for a new passport, trading in your old one so that it is 'clean'.
(3) Apply for a second passport, which, with a letter from your employer, is straightforward to get.
You say you like Syrians, but not the government. Yet you equate the two very often. For example: 'a great pity the Syrians attacked Israel and lost the region'. This has the double demerit of equating Syrians with their government, while at the same time being wrong on the facts, for it was Israel provoking the Syrian army as much as anything else that led to the conflict. Nevertheless, the first is the more important point.
This seems a strange thing to say. How? Why? Justice in the Middle East will only come with security. That's why, despite attempts to portray it otherwise, it is an Arab-Israeli, Middle-East crisis (not just an Israeli-Palestinian one).
Well, actually I disagree. My initial point was that you didn't recognise the rights of Syrian people to the water from the Golan area. You could have said, for example, this disputed area is a vital source of water to local people, both on the Israeli side and the Syrian side, one of the reasons it has become such a political hot potato. Equivocal, perhaps, but would show empathy, at least.
You didn't accept my comment about drought?
Not sure what you mean. You originally stated Syria had suffered a famine because of Israel, you then later corrected it to drought. How have I not accepted it?
With respect, you do come across one-sided. In all our exchanges I don't recall you ever saying anything positive about Israel or criticising Syria. The opposite in fact. I recall a comment posted by someone here some time ago saying you were an apologist for Syria. I ignored it but over time it proved you certainly never criticised Syria (and only have done so very recently in light of recent events).
To be lectured on taking taking care not equate the Syrian government with the Syrian people is, frankly, a little too much. I don't recall you taking such care when discussing and criticising Israel. Take a look at your comments over a couple of years and see.
Concerning your last point, we could of course discuss how after 1948 Syria sought to control water reaching the new state of Israel, or how the Syrian g't has badly managed water resources in recent years. I think these would be enlightening angles to our current debate. I can also, if you insist, show empathy towards the Syrian people for the failures of their leaders (it means, of course, you having to do the same, which has not been your forte to date).
What does it actually mean to say someone is an 'apologist'?
I wrote a comment apologising for writing 'famine' when I had meant 'drought'. My overhastiness. Anyway, for some reason you didn't let it through the filters, or perhaps it got lost somewhere before that.
Your latest comment is full of sideways swipes without any real substance. If you want to convince me of your arguments, then it's best to try give examples and / or evidence (eg, quotations) to try to prove them.
To give an example of this tactic, you write, 'You originally stated Syria had suffered a famine because of Israel'. Actually this is false. Grant that I meant drought rather than famine, to begin with. The point was that the Golan is a water resource which would greatly alleviate the drought in Syria. I didn't say that there was drought 'because of Israel,' as you accuse. I'm sure it would be easier to argue with someone who said that, but unfortunately fate hasn't smiled on you in this way.
And then there is this: To be lectured on taking taking care not equate the Syrian government with the Syrian people is, frankly, a little too much. I don't recall you taking such care when discussing and criticising Israel. Take a look at your comments over a couple of years and see.
The technical term for this is 'whataboutery'. In trying to deflect attention away from oneself, the best tactic is to ask what about this? what about that? Concerned that someone has a point in crticising Israeli army abuses? What about Hamas?!
Now, I may or may not be one-sided as you say. (Though the point is far from proven.) This is not relevant to the question first posed, and demonstrated through quotation and counter-factual, about your lack of empathy for Syrians. It is simply a tactic to distract.
And then your final comment which hints at supposed arguments. Well, it's kind of just bluster. It doesn't really make any points, but manages to strike a nice haughty tone.
I doubt this comment will be warmly welcomed, pondered and considered, but thought it worth writing all the same.
This was a rather silly comment. It's nothing to do with distracting from the issues, simply not being willing to engage intelligently with someone who lectures me on how I word my views then demonstrates breathtaking hypocrisy by doing the very same.
Looking back over my short article I'm not sure it's anywhere near as offensive as you've tried to make out in this thread. This tactic, together with a tendency to try and take the moral high ground, are also classic examples of "whataboutery".
PS anyone reading your first comment would reasonably understand you were blaming Syrian famine on Israel. OK, You were sloppy with your terminology (which could have been misunderstood by readers had it not been challenged).
And now you try to qualify further what you meant.
I never said your post was 'offensive'. Just that it only showed empathy towards people on one side of the line.
I even gave an example how how a more universally empathetic comment might have been phrased.
I guess I wouldn't have expected such relatively neutral comments to elicit such push-back, and then be called 'silly'. Still, we can all be prickly at times. I'd be interested to know what I've written (here or before) that qualifies as 'breathtaking hypocrisy' once you've caught your breath.
You are funny, Philip, given your "neutral" comments and obvious irritation in your penultimate comment. People will see your contribution for what it is.
This discussion has become pointless.
I'd say cheekiness as opposed to irritation. Seriously, there was no irritation intended. I do hope it was genuinely amusing, as you appear to say. After all, it really is quite funny when someone is accused of spilling the milk, they think it's a perfectly fine defence to say, look! but he's got his hands in the biscuit tin!
I guess it's all water under the bridge.
But for the record, here are the questions / topics from this comment thread that you have not answered / ignored:
- the Golan is not part of Israel, it is 'occupied Syria'
- my advice on how to visit Syria and whether you'll take up the opportunity
- What does it actually mean to say someone is an 'apologist'?
- Which of my comments qualify as 'breathtakingly hypocritical'?
Post a Comment