The State of Israel is striving to end the war the Arab states have forced on it and to achieve a lasting peace. The precedent set by the agreement with Egypt, the return of Sinai in exchange for comprehensive peace, will also apply to the agreement with Syria when it is signed. Since the Rabin administration in 1993, there has been no doubt that peace between Israel and Syria will involve returning the Golan Heights to Syrian control, and the core dispute remaining is the northeastern shore of Lake Kinneret. It is necessary to exhaust every chance for peace. If there are no negotiations during periods of calm, the political deadlock could break under the weight of Syrian fire.

In the '90s, then U.S. president Bill Clinton and his aides mediated between prime ministers Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak, and Syrian president Hafez Assad. Since George Bush came to power in Washington, Ariel Sharon (and recently Ehud Olmert) came to power in Jerusalem and Bashar Assad came to power in Damascus, and a rift was created in that triangle. Public overtures from the the Syrian regime never appeared to be serious. It seemed Bashar Assad was trying to hide his troubles after he was expelled from Lebanon, accused of complicity in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and charged with abetting the opposition to the new Iraqi regime and its American patron. He tightened his allegiance with Iran and continued helping Hezbollah act against Israel.

In Bush's eyes, there are two key priorities in the Middle East: transferring security in Iraq to a local government, so the American military can leave; and preparing for a conflict with an Iran on the verge of nuclear arms, if political means fail. All other issues, such as the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Lebanese arena and the possible resumption of Jerusalem-Damascus talks, are seen only from the angle of whether they serve the key goals in Iraq and Iran. In this context, the U.S. labels Syria among the bad guys and seeks to preclude its propaganda achievements, such as Assad looking like a proponent of peace.

	Advertisement

Israel, which needs American support in every arena and particularly against Iran, is subjected to a role reversal: The pressure to become more moderate has become pressure to become tougher. Bush, a constant friend, could see Israeli response to Syrian courtship as undermining his battle in Iran, which threatens Israeli existence. Tactically, it is better for the Israeli administration to be attentive to U.S. desires. Strategically, it is critical to continue striving for peace.

However, a government with political wisdom - and yes, with an agenda of peace - would strive to resolve this conflict, through constant and intensive dialogue with the U.S. Because in the end, Washington's strategic interest is also the imposition of peace between Israel and her northern neighbor.

Israel must not be seen as refusing peace. It makes sense to respond in a positive tone to Assad's peace signals while putting out quiet feelers through indirect channels from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, to determine his intent. Israel must take U.S. military and political considerations and Washington's requirements of Syria, into consideration in any fruitful process that develops between Jerusalem and Damascus.