Comment / On peace with Syria, Israeli leaders only talk the talk
Leaders fear electoral implications of Golan withdrawal due to its special status in public opinion.
By Elie Podeh Tags: Syria Israel newsThe ritual "track dance" is in full swing: the Syrian track first - no, the Palestinian track first. A future scholar researching the history of the main contacts between Israel, Syria and the Palestinians starting in the 1990s will discover a marvelous cyclical pattern: Whenever the Palestinian track reached a dead end or a breakthrough beckoned, the Israelis began talking about the Syrian track, and vice versa.
What the two tracks have in common is that no breakthrough has really occurred in either. The reasons for this are many and varied, but there is no denying that Israel bears much of the responsibility. The Barak, Sharon and Netanyahu governments seem to have preferred making noises about peace to doing anything about it. The Olmert-Livni government seems to have been the only one that took steps toward reaching an agreement, behind the scenes via Turkey.
Making do with noises about peace has a number of advantages. Psychologically, it gives our leaders, and perhaps some of our citizens, the feeling that Israel really wants peace, while the other side just talks about it. Politically, it doesn't cost anything.
There's nothing new in that the Syrian arena is more amenable. The Syrians are not as internally divided as the Palestinians, there is apparently "someone to talk to" there, and the issues and possibilities for resolving them are familiar. Some of them have already been agreed on. So why has the Syrian track been pushed aside? The answer is to be found in the inability of Israeli prime ministers to make a clear decision about withdrawing from the Golan Heights.
They fear the electoral implications of such a move because of the Golan's special status in Israeli public opinion. Unlike Judea and Samaria, an ideological question is not at issue, and different pretexts are given for not negotiating with Syrian President Bashar Assad: His government bankrolls terror attacks, it's in a strategic alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, all he wants is to dip his toes in the Kinneret, and so on.
Without belittling the importance of these matters, it should be stressed that if Anwar Sadat's positions had been scrutinized like this, there would have been no peace deal with Egypt. His first demands included not only Israeli withdrawal from all Egyptian territory it had conquered, but also a solution to the Palestinian problem. This linkage made the negotiations so difficult that Sadat walked out.
The Egyptian precedent teaches us several things about the Syrian track: First, Israel will not receive any advance concessions that could be used as bargaining chips in negotiations. Even if Syria is not prepared to formally cut its close ties with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, a serious diplomatic move would drive a wedge through this axis, with a significant affect on the regional balance of power. Second, tough initial bargaining positions do not necessarily reflect the final positions. Significantly, the Syrian position, unlike the initial Egyptian one, does not call for a solution to the Palestinian problem.
Israeli politicians mouth lofty slogans about the importance of peace with Syria, but they aren't prepared to face up to the price to be paid. Instead, they pose preconditions. Israel's situation in the Middle East is at rock bottom. Beyond the familiar regional threats, Turkey has moved away and the regimes in Egypt and Jordan have to defend themselves against public opposition to peace with Israel. We need from our decision makers a more active and effective policy, as well as cooperation with moderate elements. The Syrian arena, unlike the Palestinian one, offers an abundance of opportunities for bold and creative leadership, but that has not been forthcoming.
The writer teaches in the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
|
Syrian President Bashar Assad. |
| Photo by: (AP) |
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
Israel needs Syria do deal with Iran, what else?
Wow, how many ridiculous haaretz writers are there? Israel isn't 'walking the walk' with peace with Syria? Hey crazy writer, is Syria 'walking the walk?' What is Israel supposed to do, exactly?
Why should Israel trust them with the high ground overlooking Israel without an iron clad peace treaty in return?WHY let facts get in the way?Like Syria demanding territory that was of debatable title
Muslims born-and-raised between Rapha eastward to Thanesar have never had any concept of peace, particularly with non-Muslims, other than the kind preceded by "rest in"!
How many of you have actually seen the burned out hulks of the Syrian tanks on the Golan that attempted to invade Israel in 1967?-Asstrisks Bin Jibberish I do not recall that Syria attacked Israel in 1967. I do recall they did attack in 1973. I have been to the Golan. I have not been to Gaza in Japan. Let`s face the facts, Assad wants the Golan just in case he want to go to war again, as Syria had twice in the past- Asstrisks Bin Jibberish Let?s face the facts; Israel wants the land and water. Syria wants peace. It offers to cooperate with Israel , normal trade, diplomatic relations and mutual security arrangements. You want the status quo. Assad is rubbing his hands in anticipation of Israel giving him what his heart desires, the Golan- Asstrisks Bin Jibberish Nonsense! Yes, Assad wants the Golan returned to its rightful owner. But it has much to offer Israel if Israel wants peace in the region and Syria to withdraw its support from Hamas and Hezbollah. The ties with Iran would have to remain, but would be less than now.
the burned out hulks of the Syrian tanks on the Golan that attempted to invade Israel in 1967? If the Syrian General in charge of their armor hadn't have hesitated, those same tanks would have penetrated into Israel proper Let's face the facts, Assad wants the Golan just in case he want to go to war again, as Syria had twice in the past Assad is rubbing his hands in anticipation of Israel giving him what his heart desires, the Golan
'Jaw, jaw, jaw, is better than war, war, war!' - Winston Churchill
Israel, of course, has not. Why is it so hard to believe that if territory is returned to Syria, that it would go the way of Jordan and Egypt with whom Israel has had peace for years? Why does Israel not want this? Could it be that returning the Golan would set a precedent for the WB and EJer and Israel cannot allow this?
Netanyahu maybe willing to give up half the Golan for a full peace with Syria. Security and water rights will high on any talks.
and that explains public opinion. Also, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me (regarding Syria's use of the Golan to attack Israel in the past).
There are several moving pieces from both the Arab and Israeli sides which indicate an attempt at an "accommodation" if not actual peace treaties.
we have the sinai between us and egypt.syria lies at the gate of our population centres. in 1973 elazar and dayan begged the air force to deal with syria first,egypt far away from us could wait. (by the way the air force attack on syria screwed up its strategy of dealing with the missiles first.so syria's proximity to our population centres has an importance all of its own)
that is a pretext elie.are you asking israel to give up land to supporters of terrorists?do they not support hizballah?also a pretext? sorry elie you make no case.very weak indeed.
of course we want peace elie.that is a separate issue.we just do not want to leave the heights.
is the syrians are now twenty million and growing fast.that is the only reason. staying is by far the better idea.best to hold the high ground against an enemy that operates on conviction.that being a hatred for israel and zionism.
I'm a Syrian (3rd generation)Brazilian, Christian. That said I find absurd Israel, a developped country, sit on land that never (even in Biblical times) belonged to Israel, and that has been taken in a land grabing operation, according to Moshe Dayan's teestament letter. Syrians want Golan back due to natinal pride, period. There is no better and suitable partner in the ME than Syria, the only arab country where religion affiliation plays NO role. Why not SY-IL joint ventures on Sky resorts, Vineyards and fruit farms? What difference does it make for Golaners to pay taxes to Damascus than to TelAviv? The Israeli greed is just plain stupid, and will end causing Syrians to become an easy prey to Islamic fundamentalists. It does not seem very Jewish smart!
always the negative is on Israel grow up please, its time to stop this infintile commentry.
I am not (very) sure about that: "we`ll hear more about Syria now... which will also turn into settler-rage, because it entails settler-limitations..." I am aware some settlers there can, and do, make trouble, but what I saw there during my work, was, generaly, quite "normal" Israeli people, like everywhere, which can't be said about too many West Bank settlers. I don't know if the Golanners would behave as the "out posters" in the WB. Actually I doubt it. Although, of course, they won't be happy. Neither will I! But it needs to be done and that's it. Like giving back the beautiful Red Sea shore to Egypt (of course, Begin didn't give a damn about that...).
On waking up to this morning's heading "Netanyahu: Syria willing to renew talks without conditions" it made my day, because I rolled over laughing... It has indeed become some sort of catchword with Bibi every time he finds himself in a corner... and now the settler-corner has turned into an impasse... so we'll hear more about Syria now... which will also turn into settler-rage, because it entails settler-limitations... so more of the same...
scale wars aimed at the annihilation of Israel launched from the Golan, i.e. 1948, 1967, 1973; after 19 consecutive years of bombardment by the Syrians from the Golan of the civilian population of northern Israel, 1948-1967. After decades of being an active part of the coalition Iran-Hizballah-IslamicJihad-Hamas-Syria aiming to wipe the Jewish state off the face of earth; why should Israel seek anything more than Peace for Peace??!!
Israel already has the equivalent of peace with Syria: they don't dare attack. Therefore, any agreement that doesn't permanently destroy Syria's relationship with Iran and Hezbollah is useless and would only be considered by the "give peace a chance" crowd which loves giving away personal security for the "hope" of peace.
Perhaps both sides are posturing. Still, Syria dropped a 'killer' precondition. Which indicates that at least Syria is serious.
I think even some of the more deluded people in the world have recognized the Israeli game plan. Israel only talks about peace when pressure from International governments makes it's expedient to do so, then continues with the occupation and settlement process! Perhaps that's why the EU are debating the judicial rights of Israel to annex East Jerusalem!
...fpr "doing nothing"--a good case in point being this deer I knew once (and when he suddenly found himself caught in the headlights; well, let me tell you...)
While the writer has criticized the noise that Israeli made , claiming their intention is otherwise; The truth is that we are at best position of peace with Syria today. We are on top of the Golan and at any period of trouble or unrest could lob a missile right into the Syrian palace in Damascus very easily. There has been no soldier lost on this front , and Assad knows this as well. There is really nothing to be gained from such a peace. It is giving up a very strategic assett for a piece of worthless paper. Only a fool would really believe that Syria would change itself into a Jew lover. He would then become a dagerous enemy with upperhand. Egypt was far away and the cold peace that we have is not exactly what we hoped for. Egypt is ammassing an enormous military capability and its' address is only Israel. He doesn't need this sophisticated army as protection against Libya. Olmert had personal criminal problems so he tried to make a go with Syria. As Sharon who for personal interests