Why Syria Needs Peace
A member of Syria's cabinet told Al Jazeera TV that Israel has offered to withdraw from the Golan Heights in exchange for a peace treaty. The message, which Israel will neither confirm nor deny, was said to have been passed to Syria through Turkey, with whom both countries have diplomatic relations. (1)
Why make this public announcement? I believe that Damascus wants to stimulate support for the deal, both inside Israel and in the US, so that it cannot be withdrawn before Syria accepts it. The only obstacle to a deal in the recent past has been Israel's insistence on retaining a small strip of land near the Sea of Galilee. I think a compromise on this point is possible now, because the Syrians are anxious to settle the dispute with Israel.
Peace with Syria, the only country that fought Israel in 1967 and has not yet made a peace treaty, is in Israel's interest, provided that:
1. The Golan Heights are de-militarized, with neutral (perhaps American) troops stationed there to monitor compliance.
2. Syria blocks all supplies to Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have a record of "giving away the store" in negotiating with Arabs, so they might not hold out for these important provisions.
This latest development comes at a time of great embarrassment to Syria. The US has a video provided by Israel taken inside the Syrian reactor before it was destroyed September 6, 2007, by the Israeli Air Force.
If Israeli intelligence was able to penetrate such a high-security installation as the North Korean-built Al Kibar reactor, Syrian security is not worth camel-dung. Moreover, Israeli bombers encountered no resistance whatsoever in their mission, either from anti-craft fire or Syrian MIG fighter planes. It is significant that Syria did not retaliate in any way, even though the bombing was a blatant act of war and violation of the Cease-Fire Agreement between the two nations. Syria even attended the December peace conference in Annapolis, in defiance of Iranian objections.
My conclusion from all these developments is that Syria has made a major change of course: from alliance with Iran and North Korea to detente with the United States and Israel. Why switch sides? One obvious reason is that Syria is surrounded by countries allied with the US: Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq.(2) Another is that President Bashar Assad, who honed his strategic skills practicing ophthalmology in London, realizes that Syria lacks a military force strong enough to confront Israel, let alone the United States.
Syria's erstwhile allies, North Korea and Iran, would not be much help in case of trouble. North Korea, which has no strategic or ideological interests in the Middle East, is now seeking rapprochement with the US. Iran, on the other hand, seems intent on provoking the US and Israel, even though it cannot defeat either one. Since most Syrians are Sunni, the alliance with Shiite Iran could pose internal problems for the regime, should major conflict erupt in the region. There is a real possibility that fighting in northwestern Iraq could spill across the border into Syria, which could destabilize the country. Once American forces leave, Iraq will be "up for grabs."
It is incontrovertible that Syria needs peace; the real question now is whether the Assad regime is willing to make the concessions necessary to achieve it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Washington Post, April 24, 2008.
(2) While Syria maintains cordial relations with the US-backed government of Iraq, Damascus does nothing to prevent the transit of insurgents and weapons through Syria into Iraq. Go figure.
Why make this public announcement? I believe that Damascus wants to stimulate support for the deal, both inside Israel and in the US, so that it cannot be withdrawn before Syria accepts it. The only obstacle to a deal in the recent past has been Israel's insistence on retaining a small strip of land near the Sea of Galilee. I think a compromise on this point is possible now, because the Syrians are anxious to settle the dispute with Israel.
Peace with Syria, the only country that fought Israel in 1967 and has not yet made a peace treaty, is in Israel's interest, provided that:
1. The Golan Heights are de-militarized, with neutral (perhaps American) troops stationed there to monitor compliance.
2. Syria blocks all supplies to Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have a record of "giving away the store" in negotiating with Arabs, so they might not hold out for these important provisions.
This latest development comes at a time of great embarrassment to Syria. The US has a video provided by Israel taken inside the Syrian reactor before it was destroyed September 6, 2007, by the Israeli Air Force.
If Israeli intelligence was able to penetrate such a high-security installation as the North Korean-built Al Kibar reactor, Syrian security is not worth camel-dung. Moreover, Israeli bombers encountered no resistance whatsoever in their mission, either from anti-craft fire or Syrian MIG fighter planes. It is significant that Syria did not retaliate in any way, even though the bombing was a blatant act of war and violation of the Cease-Fire Agreement between the two nations. Syria even attended the December peace conference in Annapolis, in defiance of Iranian objections.
My conclusion from all these developments is that Syria has made a major change of course: from alliance with Iran and North Korea to detente with the United States and Israel. Why switch sides? One obvious reason is that Syria is surrounded by countries allied with the US: Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq.(2) Another is that President Bashar Assad, who honed his strategic skills practicing ophthalmology in London, realizes that Syria lacks a military force strong enough to confront Israel, let alone the United States.
Syria's erstwhile allies, North Korea and Iran, would not be much help in case of trouble. North Korea, which has no strategic or ideological interests in the Middle East, is now seeking rapprochement with the US. Iran, on the other hand, seems intent on provoking the US and Israel, even though it cannot defeat either one. Since most Syrians are Sunni, the alliance with Shiite Iran could pose internal problems for the regime, should major conflict erupt in the region. There is a real possibility that fighting in northwestern Iraq could spill across the border into Syria, which could destabilize the country. Once American forces leave, Iraq will be "up for grabs."
It is incontrovertible that Syria needs peace; the real question now is whether the Assad regime is willing to make the concessions necessary to achieve it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Washington Post, April 24, 2008.
(2) While Syria maintains cordial relations with the US-backed government of Iraq, Damascus does nothing to prevent the transit of insurgents and weapons through Syria into Iraq. Go figure.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:37 AM
2 Comments:
Your analysis is based purely on conjecture and it ignores the past 40 years of Syrian actions including support for terrorism (Hezbullah) against Israel and its military control over Lebanon (murder of numerous Lebanese Christian elected government officers), let alone its building of a nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea in order to make nuclear bombs to attack Israel.
The idea that if Israel gives back the Golan Heights that Syria would abide by any agreements made is pure fantasy and self delusion.
There is no reason for Israel to give back the Golan Heights no matter what Syria says. If Syria is as weak as you say it is, and I agree with that assessment, then Israel can just ignore Syria as it has done for the past 40 years. Who cares what Syria wants or does not want?
(Why on earth would you want Americans to defend Israel? No American has ever died defending Israel and this is a great plus politically. Jews have enemies everywhere and that is all we need is to have an Amnecian die protecting Israel and America's support for Israel would be under severe assault from many quarters.)
It may be incontravertible that Syria needs peace, but it is also incontravertable that Israel does not need peace with Syria. Therefore Israel does not need to give back the Golan for any reason.
Here is a better and more reasonable deal. Since as you say Syria needs peace and that Syria is militarily very weak, then fine let Syria bargain away the Golan for peace.
Israel gives Syria peace and in return Syria gives the Golan to Israel. Now that makes sense and that is a good deal for ALL concerned. Any other arrangement is a sell out and betrayal for Israel.
The Knesset disgrees with your willingness to give Golan to Syria, as does the Israeli public.
Israeli Knesset: No to a Golan Giveaway
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/25/2008
With Hamas and its colleagues mounting daily terror attacks from once-Israeli-controlled Gaza, with weapons flowing to the terror enclave through once-Israeli-controlled Sinai, with Hezbollah amassing an unprecedented quantity and quality of missiles in once-Israeli-controlled southern Lebanon, with only 24/7 Israeli military activity preventing a Hamas takeover of the West Bank—the push to get Israel to give up its remaining strategic assets continues.
This week President Bush met with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas in what looks like an increasingly unhinged quest to get Israel out of the West Bank by the end of this year. Whereas Bush and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert have effectively recognized the putative Palestinian state even before it exists, Abbas made clear at last November’s Annapolis conference—convened by Bush—that he refuses to recognize the Jewish state that already exists. For this and numerous other offenses to decency and amity Abbas incurs no penalty in Bush’s eyes.
Meanwhile, with Gaza a cauldron, Sinai a smuggling route, southern Lebanon bristling, and the West Bank precarious, Syrian newspapers have reported that Olmert, through Turkish mediation, has been conveying to Damascus his willingness to cede the Golan Heights as part of a peace agreement. Syrian president Bashar Assad confirmed it in an interview to a Qatari newspaper on Thursday. Olmert’s spokesman Mark Regev pointedly did not deny it.
Syria, by making the contacts public now, wants to deflect negative attention stemming from Thursday’s congressional hearings on the Israeli strike on its nuclear facility last September. The fact that the contacts have been ongoing shows that Olmert, however, is serious.
The reports, though, sparked a furious reaction in the Knesset (see here and here) that included not only right-wing parliamentarians but also—in a display of political rowdiness unusual even for Israel—members of Olmert’s own supposedly centrist Kadima Party.
One Kadima MK, Ze’ev Elkin, said, “Olmert has been fooling the Israeli public and the international community, making promises he can’t keep…he has no support for this move, neither in the Knesset nor in Kadima.” Another Kadima MK, Marina Solodkin, said, “I am utterly against any withdrawal from the Golan, mainly because Syria is in cahoots with Iran and Hezbollah. Peace with Syria at this point in time is suicidal for Israel.”
Still another Kadima MK, David Tal, said he would push for quick passage of a bill requiring a national referendum for any withdrawal from the Golan—the idea having repeatedly been shown in polls to be unpopular among the Israeli public.
As Likud MK and defense expert Yuval Steinitz put it, “Olmert’s willingness to come down from the Golan is an expression of unprecedented political and security anarchy. Israel will have serious trouble defending itself and its water sources. I have no doubt the public is on the Golan’s side, not the prime minister’s.”
Actually, in seeking to give away a strategic plateau containing vital water sources, where there is no large Arab population, where Israeli communities have been growing and flourishing since 1967, and that most of the Israeli population loves as a site for hiking, camping, skiing, and general vacationing, Olmert is doing nothing unprecedented. He is, rather, following a baneful tradition that includes Prime Ministers Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, and Barak before him.
The fact that even Rabin and Barak, who were considered hawkish Laborites for most of their respective careers, and Netanyahu, a large part of whose raison d’être as an Israeli politician is relative hawkishness, made Golan offers or at least sounded Syria out on the subject is testament to the enduring irrational power of the land-for-peace paradigm even when it contradicts logic, the empirical record, national interests, and the will of the majority of the Israeli people.
All the more striking is that Olmert has revived the Golan-giveaway bogey at a time when by all accounts the United States—to whose policy Olmert is slavishly submissive on almost all other issues—has no enthusiasm for the idea and does not buy the baseless thesis that Assad can be lured out of the Iranian-led axis with an offer of Israeli land. That thesis entails ignoring the fact that Assad’s is a minority-Alawite regime requiring enmity toward Israel for its legitimacy, bent on dominating Lebanon, and having tight sectarian, economic, ideological, and strategic bonds to Iran and Hezbollah.
The quick, incensed response of a large swath of the Knesset is, though, encouraging and—in conjunction with some recent polls indicating considerable security realism, in general, among the Israeli public—offers hope that Israel is climbing out of its descent into appeasement. As for the United States, whether it can overcome the destructive land-for-peace fantasy regarding the Palestinians is a question that will apparently have to wait till after the Bush administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
Post a Comment
<< Home