sorry about my post mess up ...... the article sofa cited was debunked 2 hrs after it was reported.... selective posting is disingenuous at best, unethical at worst. 

I wouldn't say it is "debunked at all".  Olmert never lies, and for what purpose?

Syria is so strong that when Sharon sent Israeli F-16's buzzing Assad's summer palace while he was snoozing.....  the response was overwhelming.... nothing! Yeah really strong. They have strategic missiles and that is about it. They arm Hezbollah and can foment unrest in Lebanon its proxy country.....but that is pretty much their cards they can play. Aside from that it is a dictatorial repressive and barbaric country that is still attempting to crawl its way out of the dark manages. though it must be remarked that these attempts have remained unsuccessful.

I would wait until there is some real sincerity until I start making any peace deals.

Syrian government history.

You do not negotiate with terrorists. You KILL them.

 
Herald

I've read the books and time and again the mantra is Don't negotiate with terrorists, don't give them any political recognition, but in reality terrorists are always negotiated with. I may not agree with it, I may not like it, I may think that it is damaging, but that still isn't going to stop this. (Instances are Israel with Fatah, Clinton/the US not arresting Bin Laden when they had the chance)

Now why should I consider any strategy which require actions that will just not happen in the real world. In my opinion any effective counter terror strategy will have to take into consideration that negotiations with terrorists will happen, how unfortunate that might be.

It's the same with hostage situations every book says Do not give in to the hostage taker's demand, yet that is exactly what happens all the time. So if you wanna do something about kidnappers, then you have to face up to this unpalatable thruth.

It just ain't gonna happen.

 As far as when has a nation that conquered land after first being attacked by the vanquished voluntarily given
up land, there is Okinawa.
But Israel is simply incapable of digesting land. It brings long and degrading pacification operations that are harmful
to the morale of the IDF. Moreover it brings Israel the choice of makining itself a ruling class or enfranchising those hostile to
it.
On the other hand, "peace" is to chimerical a concession to demand. And experience tells that it is a lie. There could however be some more concrete form of assurance, though I can't think of it. I suppose you can ransom it, but that is to realistic to be fashionable, money seems to cheap for the purpose, and it is hard to think of another ransom. A promise that they can have the land back when they are suitably disarmed might work but it sounds implausible. In fact any ransom sounds implausible as it would be bad for face.
I suppose you can simply announce that if your concessions are not met, you will simply appoint whatever local fellow you please as ruler and then skedaddle.
Of course you have already left Palestinian territory so all that is theoretical right now. Except for the Golan Heights. Those are a strategic resource, a barrier to a defender and a sally port to an attacker. And they are not very thickly populated so there is no point in saying it is an occupation. The only one offended is the Syrian government. And at least as governments go, as you imply it is not unjust to claim Vae Victas Bellas Princeps. Which is the best I can come up with for a fancy Latin sounding version of, "if you pick a fight you deserve what you get."