It was encouraging to learn that Israel and Syria are negotiating indirectly with the help of Turkish mediators. Turkey is a good choice for the role of intermediary. It is an Islamic country anxious to be accepted as a future member of the European Union. The Israeli-Turkish Strategic Partnership is a pillar of Israel’s defense policy. I have always thought it would be in Israel’s interest to return the Golan Heights which it has been occupying since the 1967 war. Modern missiles and technology have largely reduced their strategic importance.
But, frankly, this is a singularly odd moment for such delicate talks when the prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, is in deep trouble with a corruption scandal, the latest of several, and expected by many to step down to defend himself against the charges. It is not easy to judge if this is the start of a breakthrough or, more likely, the talks will just collapse into a pit of absurdity.
In a statement at the end of May, we were told the two neighbors will negotiate indirectly “in accordance with the Madrid Conference terms of reference for peace”. This takes us straight back to UN Security Council Resolution 242 and the crucial concept of land for peace, which is the key to stability in the Middle East. President Dwight Eisenhower once made the basic but sound statement that “Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin”.
The Syrians rightly want their territory back if there is to be peace with Israel.
Syrian diplomats are putting it about that Israel has now agreed in principle to return all of the Golan Heights, but their Israeli opposite numbers do not confirm this suggestion. Last time Syria and Israel talked about this issue the gap between the two sides was very small. Opinion polls in Israel suggest three-quarters of Israelis do not wish to hand back Syrian territory. Israelis tell you the Syrians used to shell Israeli farmers from the Golan Heights. But I recall the Israeli military have since confirmed they had a policy of provoking the Syrians.
I have been much frustrated by Syria’s foreign policy failures since the young President Bashar Assad took over. Syria’s enemies know what to say: Syria’s friends do not. Since the assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon, thought to be the responsibility of the Syrians, Syria has appeared increasingly vulnerable.
Hezbollah, which receives massive support from Iran through Syria, is like a small but fascinating crocodile which has just grown bigger and bigger, and nobody knows whose legs it might bite off next. Iran’s declaration on Feb. 16, 2005 that it shared a “united front” with Syria alarmed the Gulf states. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an eccentric and unreliable friend who has damaged the economy of his country.
President Bashar knows well that Ehud Olmert wants from him, in return for the Golan Heights, the cutting of ties with Iran, and giving up support for both Hezbollah and Hamas. I cannot see how he could agree to such demands. It should be remembered there is always the question: is President Bashar in control or is he controlled by senior military figures, who worked with his father?
The Syrians can only be concerned at their weak and restricted economy. They need to come out of isolation, build up some links with Washington when President George Bush has gone, and construct a proper and friendly Syrian-Lebanese relationship. These aims would be much assisted if Syria could reach some settlement with Israel.
I was interested to read recently an article by Yaakov Katz in The Jerusalem Post. It suggested the Israel Defense Forces are concerned over Syria’s £3 billion arms program, and Russia’s willingness to supply it with state-of— the-art MIG fighters and, most importantly, surface-to-air missiles. These would be reasons for getting along with the Syrians in future. My hunch is that Israel has a huge military superiority following massive support for many years by the United States.
We simply do not know if Syria has the ambition to become a nuclear power and, if so, is being prevented from such a course by Israeli bombing. Inevitably there have been suggestions in the agreeably free Israeli press that Ehud Olmert is only talking indirectly to Syria to distract Israelis from the corruption scandals. He might also wish to distract his countrymen from his lack of progress with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority.
I would argue it is in the interests of both Syria and Israel to make progress, but I doubt that will happen.
