Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (192102)	7/19/2006 10:47:56 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I dont think the protection once given israel by taking golan is 67 really protects them much anymore as syrian missiles can easlily hit israeli targets now. While what you say is true, I suspect that artillery cannons on the Golan are more of a possible problem than missiles somewhere else. In any event, I don't think Israel is interested in any buffers or security zones anymore unless it is in control of them. In fact, the Golan is one of the few geographically significant places which isn't a problem thanks to Israeli control. Plus, there is no reason to reward Syria with a withdrawal from the Golan. What enforcement mechanism do we have to make sure a Libya type deal sticks? Libya is not on Lebanon's borders and a stone's throw away from Israel. Long story short, I think the geography makes a huge difference.