By Nick Alexandra, Coordinator, NCF Peace Process Working Group
According to an article in Haaretz today by Aluf Benn [1]: 'Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is exploring, via a third party, the possibility of resuming peace talks with Syria. A government source said there was no direct contact between Israeli and Syrian officials, "but a very serious assessment is underway." What is being assessed is what Israel would get in return for pulling out of the Golan Heights, the nature of future bilateral relations and whether Syria would consider cutting its ties with Iran, Hezbollah and Palestinian terror organizations, Israel's main enemies in the region.'
In the last two weeks there have been several Haaretz reports dealing with reported newly granted US 'permission' for Israel to negotiate with Syria. The first, a front-page piece, was strikingly un-sourced. The second Haaretz article [2] contained quotes from the US Ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, in which he underscored the similarity in US and Israeli attitudes towards Damascus and suggested the US had never pressured Israel not to negotiate, though he did not refute the substance of the development. In NCF meetings with senior Israeli figures at the time, this response was echoed. "We don't need US permission," one cabinet member scornfully declared, but also remained open to the possibility of talks.
But while there may indeed be shared US and Israeli antipathy towards Syria, there are also divergent interests. While the US remains reluctant to ease up too much on Damascus, there seems to be impetus in Israel for more serious moves.
Several ascending Israeli political figures, including Ehud Barak and Ami Ayalon from Labor, and Kadima's Meir Sheetrit, are interested in pursuing negotiations with Damascus over the Golan. If Olmert doesn't opt for movement and/or isn't able to hang on to office after the publication of the final Winograd report in August, Syrian talks may still materialize. There is considerable incentive within the moribund coalition government to produce something dramatic before general elections loom in about a years time. Weakened by low public opinion and the government's failings in the Second Lebanon War, the Kadima party rears for its survival. If it disintegrated its members would not be welcome back into Likud. Under these conditions some dramatic progress on peace is could be the needed antidote. And the Syrian front is a possible candidate.
And according to a recent Maariv article [3]: 'The voices in the security establishment calling to open a diplomatic track on the northern front are constantly increasing. All the security ranks, except for the Mossad director, now enthusiastically support this: the chief of staff, his deputy, the director of IDF Intelligence, the chairman of the National Security Council, the Political-Security Staff in the Defense Ministry, along with the staff ranks. Military sources say that continuing the current policy will, almost certainly, lead to some sort of deterioration in the situation on the northern front, which could turn into a war within a very short time.'
There is indeed a widespread expectation within Israeli political circles, confirmed to us by well placed sources, that it is not a question of whether there will be another war, but when. And its not just IDF's failure against Hezbollah that Israel wants to repare. The possibility of hostilities with Syria [4]flaring up is a serious danger as well. This makes the need for progress towards peace all the more important.
A fledgling 'Talk to Syria' movement in Israel is seizing this crucial moment is and gathering steam. On our recent trip the NCF participated in a demonstration on the Golan Heights [5] inaugurating a stepped up campaign for negotiations with Syria. NCF member David Sasson was among the event's organizers, as well as Alon Liel, the former Foreign Ministry director general. Liel had been the Israeli chief of the second track Syria peace team that held unofficial discussions through Syrian businessman Abe Suleiman until July 2006. The demonstration, held overlooking cease-fire line across from Quneitra, boasted only about 200 people. Unfortunately Israeli 'security' restrictions limited the number of participants, shortened the list of speakers and prevented a pop band from performing.
So a number of signs in Israel augur well for developments on the Syrian track.
The US retains its reservations [6] however--it has its own problems and and its own agenda with regard to Syria. The Bush administration wants to play tough with Syria for meddling in Lebanon and facilitating the flow of insurgents into Iraq. After initially rejecting the Baker-Hamilton Report's recommendations regarding Syria (and Iran), there has now been some softening. Earlier this month Rice met briefly with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem [7] to discuss Iraq, ending the administration's two year diplomatic isolation of Damascus. But the US is still concerned about the stability of the pro-American government of Fuad Siniora. This American policy on Syria motivated yesterday's UN Security Council Resolution on the Hariri tribunal, which the US pushed through. The administration resents what it sees as Syria's efforts to undermine the Lebanese government, including what it claims is Syrian support for Fatah-al-Islam, the extremist group currently challenging the Lebanese Army in the northern Lebanese Palestinian refugee camp.
These concerns are still at play, and as Haaretz report's [8]: 'the American message to Israel in recent months has been that Israel is welcome to negotiate a return of the Golan Heights to Syria if it desires, but the U.S. will not support or assist such talks, because it fears that extending a hand to Syrian President Bashar Assad would endanger Fuad Siniora's government in Lebanon.'
In recent remarks reported in the Washinton Post [9] Rice said, "My understanding is that it is the view of Israelis, and certainly our view, that the Syrians are engaged in behavior right now that is destabilizing to the region."
The Palestinian track is another area in which there are some differences between the US and Israel. Although the lame duck administration has been largely passive with regard to the peace process, Rice has been speaking about the need for developments on Syrian front not be be made at the expense of progress with the Palestinians. The Palestinian issue "is at the core of a lot of problems in the region," Rice said in the Washington Post article [10], "there is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them." The "Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important" because it "unlocks the key" to "further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis," Rice said.