'The Israelis Should Return the Golan Heights'

DOUCHE BAG SAYS WHAT???

Look at Weiss' reporting and compare it to reality!!!

GET RID OF WEISS. HE IS A JOKE!!!!

HE MAKES THE OBSERVER LOOK LIKE A PIECE OF SHIT!!!!

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements
of that negotiated peace should be:
- Syria's full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution
1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for
Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
- Syria's full cooperation with all investigations into political
assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik
Hariri and Pierre Gemayel.
- A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use
of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons
and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel�s
problem with Hezbollah.)
- Syria's use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah
for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force
soldiers.
- A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the
democratically elected government of Lebanon.
56
- A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting
through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian
groups.
- A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment
of Israel's right to exist.
- Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and
in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis
should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee
for Israel that could include an international force on the
border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties

Well said, Mr. Weiss.

And "Bill Pearlman" is an idiot. He (like so many others who argue that side) is accusing the Report of being Anti-Semitic. And why, because it says that the Palestinians shouldn't live in oppression anymore? The reality is that Israel is an aggressive force which is a threat to the region.

Look Who's Cutting and Running Now
James Baker is the last guy we should listen to about Iraq.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Nov. 20, 2006, at 4:39 PM ET
According to the Associated Press, Henry Kissinger made it official Sunday morning in London, when he told a BBC interviewer that military victory was not possible in Iraq. Actually, what he said was this:

If you mean by "military victory" an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible.

There are a couple of qualifications in there, and what Kissinger is describing is really more the definition of a political victory than a military one, but say what you will about our Henry, he wasn't born yesterday. He must have known that the question would come up, what his answer would be, and what the ensuing AP headline ("Kissinger: Iraq Military Win Impossible") would look like.

Taken together with the dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld, the nomination of Robert Gates, and the holy awe with which the findings of the Iraq Study Group are now expected, this means that the Bush administration, or large parts of it, is now cutting if not actually running, and it is looking for partners in the process. (You have to admit that it was clever of the president to make it appear that Rumsfeld had been fired by the electorate rather than by him.) It seems that Kissinger has been giving his "realist" advice even to the supposedly most hawkish member of the administration, namely the vice president, and at a dinner in honor of the president-elect of Mexico a few nights ago, I saw him mixing easily with such ISG elders as former Rep. Lee Hamilton. Members of this wing or tendency were all over the New York Times on Sunday as well, imputing near-ethereal qualities of leadership to Robert Gates, so a sort of self-reinforcing feedback loop appears to be in place.

The summa of wisdom in these circles is the need for consultation with Iraq's immediate neighbors in Syria and Iran. Given that these two regimes have recently succeeded in destroying the other most hopeful democratic experiment in the region

PARIS' PEACE PLAN
JIM BAKER'S HOT IRAQ IDEAS December 7, 2006 -- THE profound quality of the suggestions offered by the Iraq Study Group - the panel headed by former Secretary of State James Baker that presented its report with such fanfare to the president yesterday morning - can be inferred from the following passage on page 60:

"RECOMMENDATION 19: The President and the leadership of his national security team should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership."

Truly, a grateful nation should fall on its knees and thank the benevolent Creator that the nine wise men and one woman who comprise the Iraq Study Group were willing to sacrifice themselves and come together so that such a recommendation could be placed before our leaders and the world.

The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue.

After all, only genius approaching the level of Paris could have written this sentence: "The Support Group should consist of Iraq and all the states bordering Iraq . . . and, of course, Iraq itself."

Yes, that's some Support Group, what with Iraq and Iraq in it together to support, um, Iraq.

Also in the Support Group: Iran and Syria. Yes, having done their best to destroy the new Iraq, these two tyrannical nations are poised to perform a very, very constructive role in helping to get the new Iraq up on its own two footsies!

And why? Because, see, it's in their interest to do so: "Although Iran sees it in its interest to have the United States bogged down in Iraq, Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq that led to chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state."

This is why we have commissions, you see. Regular dumb folk might look at the evidence of the past 25 years and think that the last thing Iran wants is a nice, strong and stable Iraq on its border. They might think that a strong and stable authoritarian Iraq might just attack Iran again and cause another 10-year war with deaths of millions. But here's the ISG to set us dumb people straight.

And even dumber people among us might think that if Iraq ends up strong and stable and Westernized, the Iranians would fear it might unduly influence Iran's own young population, hungry for Westernization and eager to see an end to the domination of the mullahs.

Yes, chaos and disorder would seem like a nice holiday gift to the Iranian theocracy, if you asked some of us dumb people. But then, we're dumb. Not like the ISG. Now we get it: Iran has, like, soooo much to gain from Iraq's getting better all the time.

As Paris would say, that analysis is hot!

Because Iran needs us so much to ensure that it has a nice strong Westernized Iraq on its border, the ISG says, we need to make sure the Iranians give us what we want - because, let's face it, we're in the power position here: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs will do whatever we say!

Fortunately for the world, the ISG hasn't only solved the Iran problem. It's figured out that Syria will change its ways to help Iraq. Sure, it acknowledges that Syria has allowed its border with Iraq to become a convenient escape hatch for terrorists, insurgents and former leading officials of the Saddam regime. But really, what it wants is for us to get our way in Iraq.

"Syria can make a major contribution to Iraq's stability in several ways," the ISG writes. And you know what? The ISG is right. Syria can make a major contribution to Iraq's stability. But oddly enough, it chooses not to! Because until yesterday, it didn't have Paris Hilton - sorry, James Baker - explaining how wonderfully helpful it would be.

What will Syria get in return for its help? "In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights," the ISG recommends, along with "sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement . . . which would address the key final status issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the right of return and the end of conflict."

Truly, a solution worthy of Paris Hilton!

In this context, "the right of return" refers to the claim by Palestinians that they should be allowed to return to the places and buildings where they or their families lived before the creation of the Jewish state in 1948 - in effect, giving property and residential rights to millions of Palestinians in place of Israelis and superimposing a Palestinian state literally on top of Israel.

Now, we dumb people might think that recent history demonstrates Israel will never consent to such a thing, and that Syria knows it full well, and that Syria doesn't actually want the Golan Heights back, and that like Iran, Syria would have more reason to fear a stable and successful Iraq than anything else in the world.

But that's what being stupid gets you. It means you don't understand the incredible value of the James Baker Handy-Dandy Solution to All the World's Ills. It's called "Get Israel." Once Israel is gotten, and gotten good, all the problems in the Middle East will be solved. And the seas will turn to lemonade, and the planets will come in alignment, and Mel Gibson will lie down with Jackie Mason.

Oh, and what about that war in Iraq, the ostensible subject of the Study Group's work?

Well, we're losing it, and there's no way we can win it, and we don't have enough troops to do it, and we can't get any more troops, and the ones we can get will be tired and mad, but we shouldn't pull out of Iraq because, after all, that would be a disaster.

But don't worry, everybody! Iran and Syria will save our bacon! All that needs to happen is for Israel to cease to exist!

Nice work, ISG. Paris is buying a celebratory round at Hooters. Get thee there and get thee gone.

I agree wholeheartedly.

And syreky we all know what should happen to the hook nosed kike vermin, right, you asshole

Posted by: Bill Pearlman | December 6, 2006 10:03 PM

Some might be interested to know that common derogatory slang expressions for Jews are often used by some Jews to smear other Jews. Mr. Pearlman seems quite at home dispensing such foul monikers.