Harry’s Place

Why should Syria agree to cut off support for Hezbollah in Lebanon when Hezbollah has forced the democratically Lebanese govt. to back down on its efforts to dismantle Hezbollah’s State within Lebanon? Thanks to this, Syria is once again in position to bend Lebanon to its desire. I think that Baby Assad would not trade the Golan Heights for Lebanon.

Actually no. The accord won’t be simply land for peace. The Golan is not the West Bank, there is no disenfranchised, resentful population problem. I see it very difficult for an Israeli government to give the Golan to the Syrian dictatorship. As if it was theirs!

For God’s sake, if you look at the history of the place, the State of Syria doesn’t have any valid claims. The State of Syria owned the place only since 1946, and used it to invade and kill the Jews from there. Until 1967 they used the place as a military campa and to launch rockets at Israeli kibbutzim.

Compare that with Israel: The Golan is a tourist attraction, full of nature parks and open to every men of good will that comes to visit our country. The Golan produces Israel’s best wines and is our main source of water.

I will never support peace with the Syrian dictatorship in exchange for the Golan.

very good news, they were so close before, I hope that Israel-Syria can tie up the loose ends.

Nor, incidentally, Shimon Peres.

David, I agree that there are a lot of good reasons for skepticism that this will lead anywhere. I’m on the skeptical side myself.

Whoa. Shutting off Hezbollah and diminishing Iranian influence? I’m skeptical too, to say the least.

I wouldn’t trust a fascistic Ba’athist regime to deliver peace. And if it did there is every chance of it too falling victim to Arab chauvinism and Islamic zeal.

However, let’s see what’s on offer I guess. It should in theory be one of the simpler disputes to settle - more like Egypt/Sinai.

it is not a question of “trust”, it is trying to resolve problems and not fighting on multiple fronts

which is a smart move, if Syria can guarantee Israel’s security in that area then I see no reason not to reach some form of accord.

The Syrians will commit themselves to any old thing to get what they want. Then they will use any old pretext to renege on their promises.

I assume that the Israelis will have consider the possibility of Syria reneging on any agreement?

Of course we’ve been here before. In 2000, an effort by Bill Clinton to broker an agreement failed when Israel insisted on keeping a small strip of the Golan bordering the Kineret (Sea of Galilee) and Syria refused.

Actually, the strip bordering the Kinneret was part of Israel which Syria seized during a skirmish preceding the 1967 war.

So if the “international community” really took seriously its notions of “illegal occupation” then it would have dismissed Syrian claims to the Kineret out of hand. But as we know they are rank hypocrites.

Well a cold peace worked for decades in Europe, didn’t it. Faute de mieux, it would be wonderful to see one in the Golan’s region.

Yet the European cold war parallels with Israel/Syria are hard to find, barring a comprehensive agreement covering all sorts of threats and fears that is enforced, for a very long time, regardless of political changes on any side.

The alternative to cold peace in Europe was a conflagration rivalling or even surpassing WW2 in its horrors, all produced in days or weeks rather than years. That did concentrate minds, to say the least.

But there were just two sides, training their binoculars and satellites on the tanks and missiles of the enemy every day (“oh sh*t look at the firepower they have there”), meeting at summits, and running war machines staffed by technocrats who generally saw no advantage in attacking, apart from a few hotheads. In Europe anyway, guerrilla warfare was never part of the equation, apart from some gentlemanly discreet rough stuff in the intel business.

Here there are three sides, counting Israel/Syria and Hezbollah alone, or five if you count Hamas and Iran too.

Imagine a hard core and heavily armed pro-Soviet militia in neutral Austria, which Vienna was militarily powerless to overcome, even if it were so minded politically. Although largely created and supported by Moscow, the militia has ties with, say, China too, not to mention a mind of its own.

Once in a while the militia lobs missiles at western Germany (any “target” will do), deliberately blows up embassies, peacekeepers and civilian installations of NATO countries, and kidnaps NATO soldiers in the border zone. The NATO forces could fight back, but what if Vienna would really rather stay out of it, and received a sympathetic “poor little Austria” hearing in important political circles in Bonn and beyond? What if the risks of a NATO strike provoking Moscow or Beijing are deemed too high? Soak it up (most likely), that’s what. And then face an entrenched enemy on an extra front if the Big One comes.

If Israel and Syria reach an agreement, even a comprehensive one, I find it hard to believe that Hezbollah will not take advantage of it, sooner or later, finding new firing positions or boltholes in the Golan, or, at the least, using an Israeli withdrawal deal as political justification for further defiance of Israel. They could be prevented from doing this, of course, but would Damascus – in all its guises, including nasty old guard types - really stamp on a client?

If the Golan is totally demilitarised, and stays that way, an Israel-Syria deal could be a huge step towards peace in the Middle East.

But right now many politicians and commanders throughout the region must be thinking “what, are you mad?”.

I bet Reagan and Brezhnev and his successors slept rather better than Olmert and Assad do.

Wouldn’t the best pretext for the Lion Cub to renege on the deal be the Shebaa farms? [Unless these were part of the deal]

I’m also sceptical about the future of the Golan under such a deal. Would the tourist/wine-making/agricultural facilities continue, or would the best parts be allocated to Syrian regime functionaries (sort of like Soviet-era dachas)?

I’m with Fabian on this one. What on earth can Syria offer in return for the Golan? Rein in Hezbollah? My arse!

“Actually, the strip bordering the Kinneret was part of Israel which Syria seized during a skirmish preceding the 1967 war.” – actually, no. That particular strip of land, some 300 metres wide, along the north-east quarter of Lake Kinneret, was seized by Syria in 1948. The skirmish you are talking about, between guys from Sayeret Golani and Syrian troops, didn’t lead to any land being seized.

But this is really not the point. The points are those:

• There are those on this thread who don’t want Israel to commit itself to peace with Syria because Syrian regime is fairly nasty. Yet, the very same people live in countries that have peace and normal diplomatic relations with Syria and other equally nasty regimes. Why should Israelis fight your wars, for goodness sake?

• The old story all over again: Assad Jr will receive the Golan and then will renege on the peace agreement… And the evidence? Exactly like Egypt received Sinai and reneged on the peace agreement? Exactly like Jordan reneged on the peace agreement?

• And if Syria can renege on agreements at the drop of the hat, why didn’t they agree to receive 99% of Golan few years ago, minus the famous strip of land near Kinneret? They could have received it, then reneged, couldn’t they? So perhaps they don’t find it so easy to renege?

• The sine qua non of any agreement must be verifiable demilitarisation of the Golan. Fabian talks about Syrians occasionally shooting before 67 at the kibbutzim down in the valley. Well, I was in one of these kibbutzim, in uniform, trying to defend the place and militarily it was a fairly wretched task. The strategic dominance of Golan Heights over the North-East of Galilee is absolute. Hence, lightly armed Syrian police – by all means. Perhaps a military band or two for ceremonial purposes. But neither armour nor artillery, and no infantry units entrenched in the forts dominating the Galilee Panhandle.

• Will the wine industry on the Golan continue? I hope it does (it is a fairly decent plonk) but it is not a deal breaker. Neither is the tourist industry. I gather that the draft agreement that was doing the rounds in the last year or so talks about most of the Golan becoming a national park, open to visitors from both sides of the border. Not a bad idea.

• The cessation of operation of terrorist organisations from within Syria and of the use of Syria as a supply channel of Hizbullah should certainly be part of the agreement. Now, one must distinguish here between Hamas, IJ and PFLP, operating from Damascus, and the Syria–Iran–Hizbullah nexus. The first will be relatively easy and in all probability Syria views its “guests” as bargaining chips. The second is more complicated, because Syrian interests in Lebanon are strategic (actually, imperialist) and will continue existing with or without peace with Israel. But “complicated” doesn’t mean unattainable.

• We simply can’t wait with peace until everybody in the Middle East is nice and civilised. And it behoves us to remember that one reason why they aren’t nice and civilised is precisely the ongoing conflict.

How about trading in the Hamas leadership in Damascus?
Just a thought.

“Wouldn’t the best pretext for the Lion Cub to renege on the deal be the Shebaa farms? [Unless these were part of the deal]”

Shebaa farms are on the Lebanese–Syrian border and according to UN cartographers they are within the area of Syria occupied by Israel. Hence the idea is that they will be returned to Syria. Will Hizbullah in turn attack Syria? I doubt it.

“I’m also sceptical about the future of the Golan under such a deal. Would the tourist/wine-making/agricultural facilities continue, or would the best parts be allocated to Syrian regime functionaries (sort of like Soviet-era dachas)?”

Sounds like a wonderful idea, these dachas. The last thing the Syrian regime functionaries is artillery barrages near their gazebos and swimming pools. Sounds better than any formal security arrangement.

The human rights tragedy in Palestine is more pressing, this will only take away resources from what really needs to be done: Treat Palestinians as human beings.

@S.O.Muffin

But if there is a peace-deal between Syria/Israel why would they (the functionaries) be concerned about artillery barrages in the Golan?

@S.O.Muffin

When were the last artillery barrages in the Golan btw? (Must be hard to maintain tourist/agricultural/archaeological infrastructure if they are going on all the time).

There have not been any artillery barrages or anything else in the Golan Heights since the Israeli-Syrian disengangement agreement following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Golan Heights are a leading destination for Israeli tourists every season of the year; even winter, when skiing is a popular pastime.

While it is always possible that these talks will lead to a genuine peace agreement, I think that is unlikely for the reasons pointed out in a number of above posts. Instead these talks are being use by both Israel and Syria as a cover for other actions. In Syria’s case, it is to keep the West and the Saudis from doing anyting concrete about Syria’s actions via Hezbollah to regain its dominate position in Lebanon. For Israel, it is a cover for not negotiating seriously with an increasing feeble Fateh for a Palestinian State.

“But if there is a peace-deal between Syria/Israel why would they (the functionaries) be concerned about artillery barrages in the Golan?”: Because if your post is right and Syrian regime functionaries will use Golan as their private fiefdom for their dachas, they will have vested interest in maintaining peace there.

Provided the Syrian government is sincere in its approach to negotiations (and I know that’s a big ‘if’), it’s worth trying to see if a peace deal is possible. It would remove one obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement if it works - given that the Syrians have traditionally backed, manipulated and then ultimately abandoned Palestinian rejectionists as part of their proxy struggle.

At the end of the day, Bashar Asad cares about one thing - staying in power. If he can be persuaded that abandoning Hamas and cutting ties with Hezbollah will make it easier for him to sustain his disgusting regime, then so much the better. Maybe - just for once - we need a bit of realpolitik here.

Gene

I remember some time ago after the last Israeli /Hizb’allah conflict in Lebanon you posted on Tzipi Livni (and the vibrant internal democratic debate in Israeli politics on these matters).

She said then that Israel should be seeking to negotiate with Syria.

Clearly as SO muffin says there have been continuing serious negotiations and obviously several factors have moved that place a greater pressure on Syria to weigh up its own strategic options.

Irans growing influence over Hizb’Allah and the region, Hizb’Allah’s growing autonomy and unilateralism in Lebanon are of major concerns to it.

Syria wishes to remain a powerbroker in Lebanon not reduced to a supply route for an Iranian backed shia take over, and an expansionist Iran with satelite clients either side of Syria.

In the confessional and ethnicity game of the region the Syrian regime is largely an alawi minority in a Sunni majority country with a huge border with a less than stable Iraq.

Syria also has a Northern border with Turkey and a Kurdish region (forever a part of an imagined Kurdistan) that is also currently facing major security issues as Turkey threatens to intervene in Kurish Northern Iraq (a glance at a map shows how the Syrian Kurdish area is in this geo-political region of four states over one ethnic group).

In fact in many ways, except for the necessary rhetorical homage to Arab unity and Palestinian rights, Israel represents a preferred and stable neighbour, with known concerns that relate to its security not an ethnic or religious interest in interfering in Syrias internal affairs.

The ceding of the Sheba farms to Syria as part of a negotiated settlement would make a great deal of sense (and settle a conflict using UN cartography, a perfect diplomatic gesture of which much could be made).

Hizb’Allah’s usefullness to Syria in creating a controlling hand in Lebanon may well have exceeded itself and become more of a problem.

Syria could probably maintain greater control by posing (again) as the saviour of Lebanon by restraining Hizb’ Allah.

In this context (and given the pretexts for Hizb allah’s shelling of israel) I am astonished that Israel’s tourist development of occupied land should be seen as a major obstacle.

This logic would have prevented a settlement with Egypt in israel’s best interests of security for a few resorts on the Red Sea coast.

The reason why I believe the talks between Israel and Syria will not result in a lasting peace agreement is that hostility to Israel is a far too large a part of the foundation of the Syrian state. For more then 40 years Syria has proudly borne the banner of being the Arab country that is most hostile to Israel. It is much too ingrained a part of the Syrian consciousness to be abandoned any time soon.

Any why should the Bathist regime abandon it? They are doing very well with Hezbollah’s sucessful defiance of the Lebanese govt. has brought Syria closer to regaining its old status as being the king maker in Lebanon. If Iranian power is growing too much in Lebanon, there are many less radical ways of curbing that then cutting ties with Hezbollah, Hamas and all the other terrorist groups that making peace with Israel would entittle. Syria is not likely to seek war directly with Israel any time soon, but that does not mean it is ready to make peace with Israel. Abandoning its efforts to make Lebanon a puppet state in order to get the Golan Heights back, most certainly a demilitarized Golan, is a bad bargin and one that would be to Syria’s disadvantage. And having given up its hatred of Israel, whom could the Syrian Bathists get its people to hate as a replacement? There does not seem to be any possible substitute for Israel. No, Baby Assad may not want war with Israel, but neither is he ready to make peace with Israel by a long shot.

may be so, David but that seems a bit pessimistic, if I remember from Dennis Ross’s book, part of the issue was over the land next to the lake but Father Assad’s failing health and the need to cement his heir were more pressing at the time.

the issue, as far as I understand it, from the Syrian point of view is one of national pride and bearing in mind that the leadership wants and what the individual Syrians need can be two different things, Baby Assad’s prestige would be heightened within his country by gaining the Golan and it might open up trade (I’m not sure of the state of the Syrian economy, but I’ll bet that it could do with better trading relationships with Israel, and more importantly the US)

if Baby Assad could carry off the coup of getting the Golan back be might relatively normalise relations with Israel, I am sure that the hatreds might exist, if Assad gains what does he care?

ops, that should read:

if Baby Assad could carry off the coup of getting the Golan back then they might relatively normalise relations with Israel, I am sure that the hatreds might exist, if Assad gains what does he care?

Yes, modernity, I hope you are right. But I still doubt that getting the Golan back would be worth giving up Hezbollah, etec. and abandoning their efforts to control Lebanon. Of course, as my Mom says, I am like my Dad, glass is half-empty rather then half-full type.

PS: Also I am not so sure, Assad & Co. would regard more trade, meaning contacts, with the US as a blessing.

David, you could be right, but I think that most leaders face some form of economic pressures, even dictators in the ME

but it can’t be reduced just to that, I think there are many factors at play here: Olmert’s weak position, the changing nature of power in Lebanon, the rise of Iran in the region, etc

if it reduce tensions and the potential for conflict in the ME then I am in favour of it, even if that sounds a bit naive !