On the road to Damascus
Like the talks with the Palestinians in the previous decade, the negotiations with Syria could collapse. However, if the Israeli government embarks on this dialogue with sufficient determination, and on the assumption that there really is a partner on the other side, the prospects of success exceed the risk.
By Elie PodehIn an article in Haaretz ("Markers on the road to Damascus," Dec. 29, 2006), Itamar Rabinovich states that the Israeli government has two political options - progress along the Syrian track or progress along the Palestinian one - and that a discreet clarification with Syria would enable it to decide which option is preferable. In my view, progress along the Syrian track is in any case preferable to progress along the Palestinian one at this time, for several reasons.
First, the way things look today, the prospects for solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are not promising. The Palestinian political scene is in crisis. The Hamas government cannot control Palestinian society because of its struggle with Fatah, which is challenging its authority. The dispute between Hamas and Fatah is not just political; it is also ideological, touching on fundamental issues such as recognition of Israel and the willingness to negotiate openly with it. As long as Hamas - which represents at least 40 percent of the Palestinian electorate - refuses to negotiate with Israel, the chances of Israel conducting serious talks with the Palestinians are slim. Although Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is trying his best to convey a willingness to enter into a dialogue with Israel, apparently his ability to control and influence Palestinian society and politics is limited. Thus, it must be concluded that any political initiatives regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict might fail because of internal rivalries and rifts within the Palestinian camp - irrespective of the Israeli government's readiness to make concessions.
The second reason for preferring the Syrian track is the fact that a peace treaty with Damascus would help Israel deal more effectively with the heart of the problem: the conflict with the Palestinians. A treaty with Syria, which would likely lead to a major breakthrough in Israeli-Lebanese relations, would close the circle of Israel's conflict with its neighbors and help improve its relations with Arab states, in the outer circle. If that happens, the Palestinians would be isolated and, naturally, weaker, vis-a-vis Israel.
The third reason for preferring the Syrian track is that it would affect, directly or indirectly, Syria's relations with Iran and Hezbollah. Since Syria is a major player in the axis of radical states in the region, its removal or increased distance from it would necessarily weaken the axis. Some experts estimate that talks with Syria would not necessarily distance it from Iran or Hezbollah; however, practically speaking, it seems reasonable to assume that Syria's participation in diplomatic talks with Israel, European countries and perhaps even the United States would affect its relationship with Iran and Hezbollah.
The fourth reason for preferring the Syrian track is that a political solution vis-a-vis Syria appears less complicated than a political solution in the Palestinian track. Most of the components of a peace settlement were discussed in secret talks in the 1990s and only a few issues (the final boundaries of the Israeli withdrawal, the Sea of Galilee issue and the early-warning installations) have not yet been worked out. However, they can be solved with some creative thinking. A solution in the Palestinian track is more complex because of the refugee question, the Jerusalem problem and the need to contend with a tough ideological core of settlers.
To what extent is Syria prepared to dialogue with Israel? The signals Damascus is sending out apparently indicate a willingness to initiate dialogue. The motive behind this readiness might not be the "right one" - that is, a willingness to recognize Israel - and may rather be the need to deal with various challenges in the regional and international spheres. Nevertheless, the reasons that would bring Syria to the negotiating table are of interest to historians, not to decision-makers. The late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, launched his peace initiative not because he recognized Zionist claims, but rather because of his domestic political and economic difficulties.
Like the talks with the Palestinians in the previous decade, the negotiations with Syria could collapse. However, if the Israeli government embarks on this dialogue with sufficient determination, and on the assumption that there really is a partner on the other side, the prospects of success exceed the risk.
The writer heads the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies.
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
Bahir AlAssad is trying to bring his country from the old-mentality to the new modern one. He is in between a rock and a hard place because of his father's old cronies trying to keep the status quo. He is determined to help improve relations for his country and people even if they don't agree with him, but he needs help from the outside to convince those on the inside of his gov't they need to get on the right side of progress.
Israel should at least pursue talks with Syria this year. Do I like Assad? No. Do I want to see the Golan given up? No. BUT, should Israel attack Iran and Iran retaliates, Syria, not thinking it will ever get back the Golan through negotiations, may pull a Sadat and attack the Golan while Israel is embroiled in a bitter struggle with the Iranians. Peace talks with Syria should be held, if for no other reason than to limit Tehran's ability to fight Israel on its borders.
Syrian government has been sponsoring terrorism and instability in the region for decades. I would have expected that restrictions and sanctions be in place already to deny Syrian military-run government the funds to continue their activities. Same policy should be regarding all Syrian industries, until Syria stops creating chaos and support terror. Iranian military-linked industries should also be limited, their diplomatic privileges suspended, their foreign assets frozen. The assets from Syria and Iran should be used to pay out the claims of the victims of Iranian and Syrian- sponsored terror from Israel to Argentina.
See for yourself why the Syrians need to have their Golan Heights back. In 1976,during an interview Gen. Dayan told Mr Rami Tal,a newspaper reporter. "I made a MISTAKE in allowing the CONQUEST of the Golan Heights, as Defence Minister I should have STOPPED it because the SYRIANS were NOT THREATENING US at the time." Now is the time to make amend.
Israel needs to make less enemies than more friends. I dont know what rightwing Israelis think about Israel's capability in a war with Iran but its not going to make a difference becuase there is a massive attitude difference on each side. As we learned over the summer, Israel was fighting a losing war from when it began becuase its view of success is outweighed by the prospect of failure which is the reality. Hezbillah could've had one man standing and they could've had the right to claim victory. Iran only has to kill a few thousand Israelis to accomplish something and that casualty estimate will become reality in a week of such a conflict. How many Iranians can Israel kill? How much real damage can Israel do to an oil rich country with friends? Same applies to Syria. And people, forget that when you say bomb them or invade them, you are signing off on 1000s of young Israelis, for what? So as to further US foreign policy?! THINK Shabbat Shalom/Salam Aleikum
Why does Israel need to talk to Syria before they expel the terrorist groups? It doesn't make sense.
Christoph, always feel free to discuss and to object. The problem is the following: Many politicians from very different countries made visits to Damascus. Even the German FM, who cannot be considered to be a friend of Israel, came back with the same result: there is no sense in talks with Assad AT THE MOMENT. Assad is bluffing and trying to avert the Hariri court and perhaps investigations about further killings. The right time to talk to Assad will come, when Assad will smell the coffee, meaning that the pressure will be so high, that he will be ready to move. To wait for the right time, that is diplomacy! The rest, as often seen here, is wishful thinking. Have a nice weekend.
Of course, I thank you for your providing us with scientifically and statically correct data. I wish more people would try to be as correct as this in their work. I also think that you might have to fear anti-semitism while I am only suffering from the cold in this society. In order become more correct: Politics are developping very quickly in the Middle East. So, I don't think it is correct to simply consider Syria as an evil entity although I sometimes also do not know in what we can trust. I didn't find the recent trip of Syrian officials to Spain and their begging for european support very comforting. On the other hand, as far as I see it, Syrian support vis-a-vis Hezbollah has decreased. I really think that Israel should not miss the chance to talk with Syria before it is too late, that is: before other powers with obscure interests drive Israel and Syria further apart again from each other. This would neither serve the Israelis not the Syrians, I think.
Shout this article from every rooftop! Good reasons for talking are logically presented. The only reason for not talking seems to be -" But what if they're not serious?" It's time to explore that question.
This is a golden window of opportunity to give Syria the Golan hights - Israel must go for it!
Christoph, not I am the problem, but the brutal dictatorship in Damascus which is not thawing, much to the disadvantage of the Syrian people who deserves a better life. My (secret) hope is that so much pressure will be built against the Assad regime, that Assad will board a plane and come to Jerusalem to discuss peace. But given the present situation and the character of Assad jun., I have serious doubts about my dream.
Some differences between us will remain. Maybe I should not have learnt Arabic. Then I would have some more understanding for you. As far as principles are concerned you are a good German. The day befor yesterday you already told me what I should do, what I should consider. Do you not think you should thaw a bit? You sound too frosty for this warm winter.
Too late: your yankee masters have called upon you to attack Syria, and Iran as well. Do you people never think to try to give some indication of your wishes to your elected officials in order for you to call off orders from abroad? Or are you so seriously brainwashed as to think that these orders will serve you well, in your everday lives be they at the bars in TA or working hard in your kibbutzim? What are you thinking? Are you thinking at all?
UNLIMITED RUBBISH
The situation has not changed, quite to the contrary. The new Bush initiative in Iraq pushes negotiations with the dictatorship in Damascus still further away, because the US will be more aggressive against Iran and Syria which are stirring up the violence in Iraq. It is true that the Syrian leadership is anxious about its future and the outcome of a Hariri tribunal, therefore it makes public relations offers with no real basis. The dictatorship in Damascus is in a precarious situation, based on a tiny minority. Israel together with the US should do all to topple this brutal tyranny and work together with the Syrian exiled opposition. The worst thing to do would be to give a boost to Assad.
What logic says that by holding the Golan hostage and stealing it's resources we will make peace with Syria. The land should be returned without trying to leverage it for peace. Peace will only come from mutual respect and interest, not by giving back stolen land to the the country it belongs to. The wars some claim Syria started are not what's important, a future with the Golan is not a future for peace, it is a hostage to it..