The Golan Heights were part of Syria for 21 years. They have now been part of Israel for 36 years. There was a good reason why Israel occupied them in 1967: they had been used for two decades as a seemingly impregnable base for unprovoked artillery, mortar and small arms fire at Jewish settlements, as well as Jewish soldiers and policemen in Galilee - far below the fortified Syrian positions. Moreover, Syria had occupied some strategically vital territory beyond the international border that separated the two states in 1948, giving it access to the northeastern coast of the Sea of Galilee and in some places additional frontage on the Jordan River, and was claiming more water rights at Israel's expense on this basis.

The legally binding English text of UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed after the 1967 war was complied with when Israel ceded a narrow strip of territory including the town of Quneitra to Syria in 1974 and an agreement was signed fixing the present border, which has been the most peaceful of all Israel's borders ever since.

In January 2000, with his coalition disintegrating, Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided that to retain power he must sign a peace treaty with Syria. Hafez Assad wanted nothing less than Israel's unconditional surrender. Tishrin, Syria's official newspaper, explained this:

The acceptance of normalization by several Moslem states is due to Arab disunity and irresponsibility. The conduct of these Moslem states cannot be excused, as Israel is the enemy of Islam and of all Moslems. Any approach to Israel greatly endangers Moslem interests everywhere.

Thus a "peace treaty" with Syria would be worthless. Yet Syria insisted that Israel retreat to the lines of May 1967 yielding its rights to part of the waters of Lake Galilee and the Jordan River. The principle was that any area conquered by Syria was sacred Syrian soil, but any area conquered by Israel must be returned to Syrian rule. When the talks got stuck, President Clinton (despite his friendly postures the most anti-Israeli US President since Eisenhower) met Assad in Geneva and proposed a "compromise" putting all land areas between the international border and the line of June 4th 1967, including the Banias and El-Hamma amma, under Syrian sovereignty and rejecting an Israeli presence on Mt. Hermon. Syria was only asked to give up its claim to areas west of the River Jordan.

Hafez Assad rejected these terms. Clinton should not have proposed them. He set a very dangerous precedent by treating international boundaries as less binding than Moslem conquests, thus endorsing the Moslem right of Holy War (jihad) against unbelievers.

Today, Bashar Assad wants to "negotiate" with Israel, Turkey and anyone else willing. He has been isolated by the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and feels threatened by the passage of the Syria Accountability Act [House version - Senate version] in the United States, as he continues to occupy Lebanon and to sponsor several terrorist movements. In Turkey, he did not mention the Syrian claim to the Sanjak of Alexandretta.

This should give Israeli politicians much food for thought. Ever since 1949, Israel has inept when negotiating about territory. Now, Syria's feelers were met with an official statement that Israel will not discuss the Golan until Syria has evacuated its forces from Lebanon and disarmed the Hezbollah and other terrorist movements. However, it is also essential to remind President Bush of the clear commitment in President Ford's letter to Itzhak Rabin of 1 September 1975: The US has not developed a final position on the borders. Should it do so it will give great weight to Israel's position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights. "On" does not mean "underneath".

The Ford letter was given to Israel in return for its withdrawal from the Abu Rudeis oilfield and the Gidi and Mitla passes. It is consistent with a partition of the Golan leaving its western part and the Hermon with Israel, but not with a withdrawal to the international border. President Bush may well endorse it, but not unless he is asked to do so - quietly but firmly. Not insisting on the implementation of such commitments only encourages the powers to ignore them and cheat us. The future of the Golan is likely to prove the touchstone of Israel's ability to survive. This is no time for weakness.

What threat does Islam pose on an international level? How should the West respond to the Islamic threat? Is a 'Palestinian' state within the borders of Israel inevitable? These and other questions were recently posed to Yohanan Ramati, Director of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defense . Mr. Ramati is an expert on global affairs, including the threat of Islam. This video will provide an eye-opening view of what is happening in the world today. [Taken from the Tzemach television program. 27 min.]

• • Dial-Up | Cable/DSL
• [Requires RealPlayer]