Indian president backs Syria's claim on Golan

[ejazr]

Ok, just for those who think rationally and without ideological blinkers, here is the OFFICIALLY published statement from Israeli govt. website on the Golan heights from the PMO
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Speeches/PRIME MINISTER-S COMMENTS ON MEDIA REPORTS ON GOLA

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Advisor)

Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin discussed the recent media reports regarding the Golan Heights at the Cabinet meeting, today (Thursday), September 8, 1994.

The Prime Minister said that we have no agreement with the Syrians on the line we would reach at the end of the negotiations. We have no commitment to the Syrians regarding any line of withdrawal.

What has been said and this is the entire basis for the talks with the Americans is that:

1. We accept the principle of withdrawal on the Golan Heights, and

2. We see a package deal as a table with four legs (this is also how we presented it to the Americans):

A. The depth of the withdrawal,

B. The period during which the withdrawal would be carried out,

C. The stages of the withdrawal and the linkage between them and normalization. Our position is a slight withdrawal in the first stage without the dismantling of a single settlement if possible, a testing period of three years, of at least full normalization in relations with Syria, including embassies, and only afterwards, to continue with the withdrawal. That is, normalization will meet the full test for three years after the slight withdrawal.

There was a similar testing period with the Egyptians, during the 26 months following Sadat's visit. Then, we remained at the Ras Muhammad-El Arish line from February 1980 until April 1982. During this period, there was full normalization, including embassies and an open border. We are now speaking about three years a three year testing period during which we would remain at the minor and very partial withdrawal line.

D. Agreement over security arrangements which must ensure security in the case of peace with Syria.

From the Americans, we will request support in three areas:
* deterrence,
* warning,
* security breathing space.

In response to a question from Agriculture Minister Ya'akov Tsur, the Prime Minister said, "We are not prepared to commit ourselves regarding the depth of the withdrawal before the Syrians agree to the number of years over which it will continue and this must be more than three years, because three years is for the first line only, and the Syrians have not yet agreed."

The Prime Minister restated his position and said that in any case of significant withdrawal in exchange for peace with Syria, the draft peace treaty would be brought to the people to decide in a referendum.

 

[Ray]

Tronic, they may be two very different issues historically and politically.

But they are not two very different issues in the minds of the Muslims.

The Muslim world, by which we mean every thing from the Horn of Africa to the rim of Central Asia, perceives it as oppression and occupation of muslims, of denial of their identity and usurpation of their religious 'heritage'. And this is a function solely of the media.

Kashmir and Palestine are not the same, not to anyone that is remotely aware of the historicity of the issue. But for the vast majority, that are not, they infinitesimaly are.

Just on the issue of Kashmir and Palestine being similar to some in the world.

Very recently, Khaemeni, the religious head of Iran, stated that the Muslims should fight in Kashmir! This sentiment took all by surprise since Iran is said to be most friendly to India amongst Islamic Nations.

There are 'n' number of exhortations from individuals and govts to unite to fight and struggle for Palestine and Kashmir.

The UN voting pattern on these subjects and the assistance given to Pakistan in their wars with India, bear witness too!

Therefore, pragmatically seen, there definitely is a commonality in the cause!

But then, isn't it natural?

 

[Tronic]

Tronic, they may be two very different issues historically and politically.

But they are not two very different issues in the minds of the Muslims.

The Muslim world, by which we mean every thing from the Horn of Africa to the rim of Central Asia, perceives it as oppression and occupation of muslims, of denial of their identity and usurpation of their religious 'heritage'. And this is a function solely of the media.

Kashmir and Palestine are not the same, not to anyone that is remotely aware of the historicity of the issue. But for the vast majority, that are not, they infinitesimaly are.

Rage, than that is misunderstanding the "Muslim mind", whatever that is. Yes, there are pan-Islamic groups involved, but the "Islamic world" is hardly a pan-Islamic world. With ethnic secessionist movements taking place all over; from the Kurdish people, to the Balochis in Pakistan, to the Berber in Algeria, to the Ahwazi Arabs of Iran, to Yemen where the south wants to secede again, to the Aceh people of Indonesia; the list is endless. What you point out, is a small tiny minority which wishes to have pan-Islamism. Terrorists such as AQ and company; which use this as tool for recruitment. Pakistanis love the idea of having others from all over the Muslim world fight for them but they will never give up their country; a goal which pan-Islamism wants to achieve. With the so many secessionist movements, the biggest enemies of pan-Islamism is the Muslims themselves!! Infact, the biggest slap to pan-Islamism is pan-Arabism.

Now, these are all merely political tools. The reason for such fundamentalism in the Islamic world is a side effect of the cold war. The Middle East was as a whole, a socialist, communist leaning region. Where Communist systems such as South Yemen existed and their socialist brethren like the Egyptians, Syrians and the Lebanese were strong advocates of socialism. Even Iran happened to be a socialist leaning nation with a democratically elected President. At the time, the Americans saw the right-wing parties as their friends, and therefore, decided to undermine these systems. A democratic Iran was toppled and an authoritarian puppet head, the Shah was put in place by the Americans. The other socialist countries in the region, such as Egypt and Syria, were marginalized and fundamental dictators in the region, such as the Saudis were supported and propped up. Even Afghanistan saw the rise of progressive socialism, which too was dealt with adequate radicalization and the advocation of pan-Islamism to fight the evil socialist monster. Infact;

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs
["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid
the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention.
In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter.
You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to
the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army
invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until
now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President
Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of The
pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was
going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the
effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to
regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote
to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its
Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism,
having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation
of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated:
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to
Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a
rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading
religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in
common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan
militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.

The reason we today see the growth of right-wing fundamentalism is simply because this was used as a tool in the cold war, to fight socialism, which was generally always USSR leaning.

 

[Tronic]

Just on the issue of Kashmir and Palestine being similar to some in the world.

Very recently, Khaemeni, the religious head of Iran, stated that the Muslims should fight in Kashmir! This sentiment took all by surprise since Iran is said to be most friendly to India amongst Islamic Nations.

There are 'n' number of exhortations from individuals and govts to unite to fight and struggle for Palestine and Kashmir.

The UN voting pattern on these subjects and the assistance given to Pakistan in their wars with India, bear witness too!

Therefore, pragmatically seen, there definitely is a commonality in the cause!

But then, isn't it natural?

Sir, maybe it is due to India being the first to vote against Iran during the UN meet to discuss their nuclear program? Shah's Iran was Pakistan's friend no doubt, since they were both glued together by American partnerships, not due to common religion (it isn't common anyways). But Islamic Iran after '79 has always shared a closer relationship with India rather than Pakistan, whether that be joining hands in Afghanistan to fight against Pakistani sponsored Taliban, or keeping num on the Kashmir issue. It is not a big matter though, Iran has enough skeletons of their own; from Kurdistan to the Awahzi Arabs.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Its the subtle presence or as the case might be the pronounced absence of certain words,nuanced phrases and their semantics which sets the tone and tenor of any bilateral relationship between any two countries.Its not correct to argue that observation made by members here regarding such diplomatic semantic amounts to an unnecessary brouhaha.Recently we were witness to a similar exercise of probing political semantics embedded in the statements and remarks of the President of the USA.While some faulted Obama for not mentioning 'Pakistan' in his homage to Mumbai terror attack victims,others welcomed the clear absence of the 'Kashmir' word in many of his key official statements.........Semantics form a key element in the practice of international diplomacy,deciphering them in order to understand the subtext is a very valid exercise.

Except for the odd statement attributed a Israeli bureaucrat,India has had no reasons to complain with Israel with regards to any of our core strategic interests,including Kashmir.Presidents statement would have struck the right balanced cords had it merely restricted itself to expressing support to various UN statements with regards to Arab territories occupied by Israel.When the statement touched specific that's when it cause a few surprises.Since retaliation visa viv Israel was not the primary motivation(atleast that's what we think) and since Syria not done anything which has made its stock rise within the Indian political-strategic circles,its fair to conclude there perhaps must have been other motivations.......Since the govt is unlikely to articulate what that motivation may have been, so lets leave it at that.