Coffee or tea, Mr. Assad?
Whoever does not know whether Assad really wants peace cannot know whether Assad wants war.
By Zvi Bar'el"To the best of our knowledge and in my personal assessment, as well, we are not expecting a war this summer," declared Deputy Chief of Staff Moshe Kaplinsky, arranging the summer for us. But what is "to the best of our knowledge" and what is the meaning of "my personal assessment?" Is that the same personal or institutional assessment that can tell whether Assad wants peace? Is this the same database that led Military Intelligence (MI) to determine that Iran would have nuclear capability starting in mid-2009, after we had already heard various and sundry assessments? The same database that was unable to predict that Hamas would seize control of Gaza and, before that, that Hamas would win the elections?
The question of what those supposedly in the know really do know, and to what extent we can rely on their assessments, is a very important one.
Whoever does not know whether Assad really wants peace cannot know whether Assad wants war. Herein lies the major problem: In the absence of real knowledge, Israel's security is beginning to rely on subjective logic and, even worse, on frozen mind-sets. The mind-set, for example, that says that Assad wants Washington, not Israel; that he is preparing a war but does not want to wage it and, primarily, that Syria's entire policy is based on what Syria alone wants, and Israel plays no role whatsoever in influencing Syria's wishes.
The same is true of Iran. The working assumption that Iran will have nuclear capability in another year or two is a reasonable and worthy assumption, but is anyone bothering to examine the processes at work inside Iran at the moment? Is there absolutely no possibility of influencing Iran's ambitions? Is the internal criticism being voiced against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the protest by students and economists, the political activity Mohammed Khatamei supporters are fomenting to prevent Ahmadinejad's re-election as president two years from now - being taken into account?
MI believes that a system of pressures and sanctions would push Iran into a diplomatic compromise that would likely postpone the realization of its plan to achieve nuclear capability, and that huge oil revenues ensure the regime's stability. However, if a rich and stable regime is likely to change its policy, wouldn't it then make sense to try to influence it? Wouldn't it make sense to attempt to conduct genuine negotiations with Syria and convince the U.S. to get involved without being allowed to shrug its shoulders as though the issue had nothing to do with it? Is Olmert's invitation to Assad to join him for tea or coffee in Jerusalem the most the Israeli prime minister can do to obtain some knowledge beyond a "personal assessment" or the deputy chief of staff's general knowledge?
The same is true of terror. The Israel Defense Forces is under the impression that in many countries and terror organizations in the Middle East there is an increasingly strong "narrative of resistance"; "according to this approach, the problems with Israel will not be solved on the negotiating table but rather through violent confrontation" (Haaretz, July 11). There is nothing like this "impression" to demonstrate the extent to which Israel is stuck in the passive approach that prefers to wring its hands in profound distress in the face of threatening developments in the Middle East and wait until the prophecy fulfills itself. As though we were talking about a meteor plummeting from the sky that no force could divert from its lethal route. As though the narrative has only one creator.
There is also nothing like Kaplinsky's statement regarding the possibility of a war this summer to prove the extent mere words, or a "personal assessment" by a senior commander, can create a reality. We can imagine what would happen if an Israeli statesman - excuse me, a senior Israeli politician - were to get up and create a new reality, one not dependent only on Assad's statements, one that does not assume Iran is imprisoned inside one page of history that cannot be turned. One that does not surrender when confronted with a "narrative of resistance," but tries to disprove this narrative through a new Israeli policy. But until this statesman stands up, Israel is fated to be imprisoned inside intelligence assessments instead of vice versa.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
I am sure Syria would love to open those roads, all the better to pour their infantry through.
This was the only thing Hitler and the Mufti ever Disagreed about. Get ready for war.
If these threats are serious Israel is much safer and more secure controlling the Golan. If they aren't serious Israel has no motive or incentive to engage in 'talks' which might lead to relinguish of hard assets in return for soft rhetoric of 'peace'.
Is Assad under the madman's control? Would you have to make peace with the new greater Iran and reconcile with the madman? Some of the posters from Syria have called Assad's control into question. Would the looney tune let you drive through Syria and would he make peace with Israel? P.S. I support the advertisers and so do not feel guilty if you are free loading. I imagine money comes from their advertisers.
"We have to stop this madness by not supporting haaretz." Now that you mention it: since Haaretz doesn't get any money from me, maybe after nearly two years of free information consumption and talkback participation I should start feeling guilty of parasitism.
I think if no body is sure what Assad want, haaretz editorial know. This paper gone beyond of his limitation by printing every week something about Assad and Syria. We have to stop this madness by not supporting haaretz.
You are correctly hinting at one external aspect of the Syrian dilemma! Syria is stuck between two parties and is weaker than both. No matter what would be the Syrian choices of alliance: in case of war she'd have a considerable problem.
It's hard to figure out what someone with two guns pointed at his head (Israel and Iran) is thinking.
Syria, alone is no match for Israel. The problem rests with Iran. Assad does not have a perverted mind thinking he is a divine envoy, as the Iranian midget feels. but Syria can be draged in a war against Israel if Iran orders Asad.The report from Qatar about 600 rocket destinations in Israel from Iran in case IDF or USA atacks them is just a bunch of emptu rethoric, clasi of Oriental paroxism, Iran knows damn well that if Israel decides to launch a preemtive atack Iran wont have the resources to counter anything.
Dear Uzi, has it never occurred to you (and quite a few others) that Syria has a commodity to offer Israel which is a lot more precious to us than all of the Golan? No, it is not just a peace treaty - it also includes opening the land routes via Turkey to Europe, the Caucasus, Russia. Isn't it time to end our self-imposed insularity with a single airport and no railroad or highway connections to the wide world? Just think of that, instead of focusing your view on the Golan to the exclusion of a broader perspective. Even a "cold peace" could thereby make us a much more prosperous and attractive country. I suggest that Israelis should be asked not only whether they are against leaving the Golan, but also whether they would like to travel to Europe or the Caucasus in their cars, or perhaps buy a railway ticket to Paris.
he gets his way. He got Lebanon in exchange for helping USA fight Saddam. Isn't that right? Someone correct my history if I am wrong. Now USA wants to help Lebanon get free of Syria. I would like that to happen. Assad is a cruel dictator who puts good people in prison in Lebanon and Syria. What if, however, Hezbollah and Assad get the upper hand? He wants Israel to be part of the greater Syria. I don't think Israel wants to be under Syria - but a peace deal could be worked out. WHAT IF? WHAT IF?
"The mind-set, for example, that says that Assad wants Washington, not Israel" It's an old thought: Using Tel-Aviv as a springboard to Washington. If I was Bashar, I'd be content with building solid partnerships in the middle east. I find the middle east much more interesting than the USA. It's funny: Among natural scientists (I also am one) the thought is very widespread that you have to go to the US to become "important", to do "real research" etc. But I never earnestly thought about that. Maybe it's because I find the US culturally boring although I like the output of certain individual artists like David Lynch or Leonard Bernstein. Or because I have a little contempt for the US' ecological insanity or the kitchy TV series with successful millionaires and their perfectly made up women trying to persuade us that this is what is desirable in life. Maybe such things spuriously made me believe that life is too easy in the US or that the Americans are just like many Germans.
My Dear ZVI. Israel is stuck and the way out at the moment is only through another war, and preferably a regional one. If this same momentum continues and it probably will and it might even worsen, can you see Israel launching a war 3 or 4 years down the road when Iran becomes nuclear and more assertive, Hamas controlling more and more the Palestinians, Hizbollah more armed and..and.. Israel have choices, either reaffirm itself now and resolve at least the immediate threat , Syria and Hezbollah or accept its fate and sign a peace treaty.
Territories Syria had or grabbed before the six days war or previous understandings reached are all utterly irrelevant and insignificant. Syria should come forward and spell out what they offer in return for what they want.
They do want, however, to break out of their international isolation and regain the Golan without 'giving' anything tangible in return, least of all real peace. In this instance 'land for peace' is both immoral and unworkable. Syria had used the Golan to threaten, pester and attack Israel before we took it in self defence. Now Israel need the Golan for our security. It would be idiotic to concede anything to Syria in response to their war threats. The more serious the threat the more Israel need the Golan. To move toward peace Syria must offer, accept and be satisfied with a 'painful' territorial compromises.
Yes, it makes sense to see if a real peace with Syria and Iran is possible. That still leaves the Israel/Palestinian situation, which is ugly and getting worse. This is a running sore in Israels image with the world and will prevent normal relations with the rest of the Arab world.