8 short comments on the Israel-Syria peace talks

1.

I was never a big fan of Syria. Here is what I wrote about President Assad a while ago:

"Like an acrobat on a tightrope, Assad meticulously walks the fine line between two strategies: He is not enough of a nuisance to make it necessary to deal with him urgently (Iran, the much stronger country in his camp, and the Syrian circus' safety net, plays that role), but not quiet enough to make himself negligible and marginalized. Assad is a fine acrobat - a joy to watch - as long as he doesn't fall".

2.

Was I surprised? Yes, I was. But I can easily get over it by thinking about the way Foreign Minister Livni and Defense Minister Barak got the news, reportedly, in the very last minute (update: I'm not sure how accurate was this report, but the fact that people in the Prime Minister's office were trying to create such impression is still significant).

3.

"You need the U.S. administration to be on board for any deal to proceed. The current U.S. administration is very hostile to the Syrian regime. So I would think that probably you still need the next administration to come to office for this effort to come near completion". This is the opinion of one expert, but also something most experts believe to be true. So, what does the U.S. want?

Take a second look at the things President Bush was saying in my interview with him last week:

"I have made some very clear conditions for the United States talking with them. We said, look, you're housing Hamas. You're enabling transit of materials to Hezbollah in Lebanon -- at this moment they were also trying to control and run Lebanon. They've made life miserable for the young democracy in Iraq, and that -- it's easy to get our attention, and that has actually become a constructive force, a positive force, a force for peace, not a force that continually uses these extremist groups to destabilize the neighborhood. That's the position of the United States, separated from Syria by an ocean."

Assistant Secretary of state, David Welch, offered what AP called a "tepid endorsement": "we think the expansion of the circle of peace would be a good thing".

4.

And let's be honest here. Olmert is in a very tough position. One expert whom I called this morning, and did not yet has the time to take a closer look at the news, offered an off the cuff remark: It's all about domestic politics.

5.

And think about American politics for a second: is this the best news Obama has heard this week or what? You will be able to hear Obama saying this, probably as soon as today or tomorrow: I told you that talking to one's enemies is the right way to go. Look - Israel is now talking to Syria, so why can't we? He can even quote Olmert's speech tonight: "Talking is always better than shooting".

And by the way: as soon as this becomes an election issue, it will also get much more attention from the American media.

6.

On a more serious note: the role of Turkey is very interesting, and the reasons for which it is trying to help the sides get closer should be carefully explored. The regional context is clear: Turkey wants to try and expand the moderate-safety-belt - the one countering the aggressive Iran. But it also wants to assert its own influence in the region, and maybe show the world that it does not follow instructions from Washington, but rather offer an alternative. (I wrote about the US and Turkey here)

7.

Will this have any impact on the Israeli-Palestinian track?

Two schools of though have been debating this issue for more than a decade: One claims that Israel can not make progress on two peace fronts at once; the other is saying that negotiating with Syria will actually make it easier with the Palestinians (they will not want to miss the train). Which one is right? Maybe this time we're going to get a more definitive answer.

8.

Is peace with Syria coming soon? I still think the answer is no. Here is why: the Syrians want to talk to the US, not Israel. They want the Golan Heights, but want Lebanon even more. They say that they will not abandon their alliance with Iran. If these things did not change, prospects for peace are quite questionable.

However, there is one big "if" here: If the US has decided to give up on Lebanon, things might look different. Some people might argue that we see early signs for such possibility in the new Lebanese deal.