WASHINGTON - A few short weeks ago, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter told Army Radio, with regard to peace talks with Syria, that "if it turned out that there was someone to talk to and something to talk about, the idea would be right." On Tuesday, however, after his meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Dichter sounded somewhat different.

He said he was for talks "in principle," but at the same time presented three conditions amazingly similar to the unbending American ones: the need for the closing down of the terror organizations in Damascus, for cessation of support for Hezbollah and of intervention in Lebanon, and prevention of the entry of terrorists into Iraq from Syria. On the third point, Dichter revealed another element: as long as the U.S. saw a problem with the Syrian channel, "Israel could not ignore it."

The U.S. does indeed see a problem, even a few problems, when it comes to the possibility of talks between Israel and Syria. In the continued approaches by Syrian President Bashar Assad, they see a clumsy attempt to escape the siege they have instituted, and perhaps also to escape the possible implications of the Rafik Hariri murder investigation. The U.S. is thus not interested in seeing Israel and Syria move ahead with a separate channel.

	Advertisement

An administration official who recently described possible developments did not discount the possibility of an attempt to talk to the Syrians in the coming months. But the administration's stand is that dialogue with Syria should be coordinated with all those involved. The Americans, he said, wanted talks to take place in such a way that their concerns would be addressed as well.

In any case, most American officials dealing with the Syrian channel say they don't believe the Syrians are sincere. Syria's rulers say one thing to the European media and another to the Syrian press, the assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, David Welch, warned a few weeks ago. Welch called the Syrian position on negotiations "confusing."

Martin Indyk, who held Hadley's job in the Clinton administration and is very familiar with the details of previous talks with the Syrians, said Tuesday he also doubted that Assad was serious. In Israel, too, Assad is not seen has having met any test of seriousness of intentions.

Both the Israelis and the Americans understand the problematic nature of refusing to negotiate. Dennis Ross, former chief Middle East negotiator, said Thursday that the Syrians' true intentions must be understood. Indyk says Israel must examine the seriousness of the intentions of any Arab leader who says he wants peace. On the other hand, as one Israeli official put it, "the days are over in which every meeting with an Arab leader in a closed room is a reason for excitement." The administration also believes that the meeting is not the important thing, since the basis for agreement has existed for a decade.

So why did Israel choose not to negotiate, and why does the U.S. now oppose talks? The administration has been placing emphasis lately on "strengthening the moderates" among the Sunni Arabs against the Iran-led Shi'ite axis. This position was one of the central messages in the speech President George W. Bush gave at the United Nations in September, and Rice's trip to the Middle East two weeks ago had a similar theme. Syria has chosen to link to Iran and Hezbollah, and negotiating with it will serve the wrong side. Strategically, Indyk said, there is good reason to oppose talks with Assad.

The administration is also concerned that moving ahead with the Syrians will hold back progress on the Palestinian channel, because it will prove once again that "irresponsible behavior" like Assad's brings about better results than "responsible" conduct like that of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Both Ross and Indyk, both of whom are more experienced than any other American in these issues, agree that moving ahead on both channels simultaneously is impossible, both politically and diplomatically.

The administration believes that the Syrians are busy right now trying to prove that they are "a key factor" to stability in the region, but Ross and Indyk believe this is not the case. Progress on the Palestinian front, they say, will bear more significant fruit.

The U.S. was very clear with Israel: Now is not the time, this is not the way.

If negotiations with the Syrians are to take place, they must not only solve the problem of Israel's northern border and the Palestinian terror headquarters, but also persuade the U.S. that Syria has finally released Lebanon from its grasp and will also assist in rehabilitating its neighbor, Iraq.

On the matter of Lebanon, the State Department's Welch noted drily two weeks ago that Syria is the only Arab country that still does not have diplomatic relations with Lebanon.

Was American opposition the main reason Olmert decided to spurn Syria's outstretched hand? Indyk believes that is the case, despite denials by Israeli officials. The Israeli position was similar to the American one from the outset, they say, and Israel was never dictated to. However one Israeli diplomat conceded that the U.S. position "must be taken into consideration."

In any case, leaders from a number of Arab and European countries, in talks with Americans and Israelis, have shown no special enthusiasm for the opening of the Syrian channel, for similar reasons.