The Israeli/Syrian negotiations and the lack of courage
On Nov. 19, 1977 President Anwar Sadat of Egypt stood before the Israeli Knesset to deliver his infamous speech about peace between Arabs and Jews. President Sadat became the first Arab leader in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict to visit Jerusalem and meet with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The move by President Sadat showed true unadulterated courage of a leader committed to the cause. The ensuing history proved his vision to be the only viable solution to the conflict in the Middle-East. Unfortunately President Sadat paid dearly for that vision with his life.
In the same spirit and on September 13, 1993 Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat stood at the White-House lawn in Washington DC and shook hands after signing the Oslo Accords. It was the first time the PLO acknowledged the rights of Israel to exist while Israel reciprocated by acknowledging the rights of the Palestinian people to be represented by the Palestinian Authority. Courage marked that moment, and history showed us surprising consistency when Prime Minister Rabin lost his life for it. Courage and leadership goes hand in hand, Sadat and Rabin knew this and their leadership never flinched. Leadership is what is lacking of the latest round of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel, without it peace will only be a phantom.
While many hope for an everlasting peace between the two sworn long times enemies, yet this general optimism have eclipsed the real obstacles standing on the road to a peace treaty between the two countries. Among these obstacles are the motives of the countries leaders. On one hand, Bashar Assad’s desire of breaking up his regional as well as international political isolation, while on the other Prime Minister Olmert’s inability to advance his dead-locked track on the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations and his personal trouble with the law on the latest charges of bribery against him.
Peace indeed is possible between the two countries, but not without leadership change on both fronts. In a broader perspective, the region can certainly use a true peace between Israel and Syria, not an Egyptian or Jordanian style, but peace between two people who are capable of carrying out the mantle for generations to come. Syrians and Israelis share multitudes of inherent attributes that make them ideal to living side-by-side and experiencing the much anticipated peaceful worldly vision of Arabs and Jews. Among these are both people love for commerce, ingenuity, strength, pride, family ties, and religious devotion. Yet sadly these attributes are insufficient to eliminate long years of the state of war and suspicion that have existed between the two countries.
Some argue that negotiations can enhance the prospects of finalizing a peace deal and would, if not bring one, at least release the rising tension that could lead to another regional war in the region. A plausible argument indeed, yet highly flawed and for several reasons; among them the Modus Vivendi status that have existed on the Golan Heights for the past 40 years. The Cold War-like stability that has permeated the relations between the two countries makes a perfect recipe for impeding progress in any future negotiations. Quality incentives whether positive or negative ones are the basic ingredients for any successful negotiations and none are present at this time. Israel, have managed to weaken Syria militarily and politically to the point of no return and would gain little in the supposedly prevailing assumption of drawing Syria out of the Iranian orbit. Syria, have managed to garner popular support among the Arab populace by standing up to the American and Israeli project for the New Middle-East. Why would any of them give up such a powerful position without real financial as much as political incentives? Let’s not forget that the United States, who have played major role in sponsoring previous peace talks between Israel and Arabs, have expressed lack-luster attitude towards the resumption of these negotiations and does not see them as beneficial to its long term interests.
Despite the current hopeful signs of upcoming era of temporary stability in the region, many dangerous factors are still lurking beneath the surface. While the Lebanese question seem to be settling into a workable arrangement for the country, the question of Hezbollah’s arms has left many to ponder the possibility of real peace in that country. Syria’s role in Lebanon has not only managed to win the battle of the wits with the West but have considerably been strengthened. By keeping its strong ties with Hezbollah and an open highway for arming it, Syria stands to gain much in any future conflict with Israel. The demand from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni to cease support for Hezbollah and Hamas as preconditions to the resumption of negotiations between the two countries, are indicative of the dismal future for these talks.
The Iranian question remains wide open and Syria’s disentanglement from such relations might not be as easy as it seems. Although President Bashar Assad have mocked the recently reported preconditions of distancing Syria from its strategic relations with Iran as a foreign policy dictate issue which equals Syria’s demand from Israel to distance itself from the United States, yet the relationship of Syria and Iran goes further than strategic alliance. Syria started its relationships with Iran during the Shah’s era and the opening of these relationships in the 60’s was through the religious establishment in Iran at the time. Under the late Assad, the relationships went further to protect the regime from Saddam’s insatiable appetite for regime change in Syria. But with Bashar at the helm, this relationship has been upgraded to the first level and became web tangled economically and ideologically. Today, before Syria can think of the idea of distancing itself from Iran it must be highly incentivized financially and politically, something that only the United States and its Arab allies in the region can offer.
Can President Bashar Assad break away from his current position to directly address the overwhelmingly opposed Israeli public and make a case for him to get back the Golan Heights as Sadat did in 1977? Can Prime Minister Olmerts reach out to his cabinet and Knesset members and make a case for giving back the same Heights in exchange for peace with Syria today? This author sincerely doubts both scenarios and for good reason. The possibility of war today between Syria and Israel is nil, therefore a negative incentive for peace deal is non-existent and the Modus Vivendi status quo seems befitting both countries. However, this does not mean that both countries should not pursue peace. Peace is always a noble goal and peace seekers are the “Blessed Ones” according to the heavenly messenger of peace. However, it is the courage that is lacking today among the two leaders seeking peace, Bashar’s inability to break-out of his father’s straight jacket of Arab Solidarity and Nationalism and Olmert’s thinly disguised lack of political will in making peace for the right reasons. Neither have leadership quality today and neither can lead their respective countries to a peace deal.
In the same spirit and on September 13, 1993 Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat stood at the White-House lawn in Washington DC and shook hands after signing the Oslo Accords. It was the first time the PLO acknowledged the rights of Israel to exist while Israel reciprocated by acknowledging the rights of the Palestinian people to be represented by the Palestinian Authority. Courage marked that moment, and history showed us surprising consistency when Prime Minister Rabin lost his life for it. Courage and leadership goes hand in hand, Sadat and Rabin knew this and their leadership never flinched. Leadership is what is lacking of the latest round of indirect peace talks between Syria and Israel, without it peace will only be a phantom.
While many hope for an everlasting peace between the two sworn long times enemies, yet this general optimism have eclipsed the real obstacles standing on the road to a peace treaty between the two countries. Among these obstacles are the motives of the countries leaders. On one hand, Bashar Assad’s desire of breaking up his regional as well as international political isolation, while on the other Prime Minister Olmert’s inability to advance his dead-locked track on the Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations and his personal trouble with the law on the latest charges of bribery against him.
Peace indeed is possible between the two countries, but not without leadership change on both fronts. In a broader perspective, the region can certainly use a true peace between Israel and Syria, not an Egyptian or Jordanian style, but peace between two people who are capable of carrying out the mantle for generations to come. Syrians and Israelis share multitudes of inherent attributes that make them ideal to living side-by-side and experiencing the much anticipated peaceful worldly vision of Arabs and Jews. Among these are both people love for commerce, ingenuity, strength, pride, family ties, and religious devotion. Yet sadly these attributes are insufficient to eliminate long years of the state of war and suspicion that have existed between the two countries.
Some argue that negotiations can enhance the prospects of finalizing a peace deal and would, if not bring one, at least release the rising tension that could lead to another regional war in the region. A plausible argument indeed, yet highly flawed and for several reasons; among them the Modus Vivendi status that have existed on the Golan Heights for the past 40 years. The Cold War-like stability that has permeated the relations between the two countries makes a perfect recipe for impeding progress in any future negotiations. Quality incentives whether positive or negative ones are the basic ingredients for any successful negotiations and none are present at this time. Israel, have managed to weaken Syria militarily and politically to the point of no return and would gain little in the supposedly prevailing assumption of drawing Syria out of the Iranian orbit. Syria, have managed to garner popular support among the Arab populace by standing up to the American and Israeli project for the New Middle-East. Why would any of them give up such a powerful position without real financial as much as political incentives? Let’s not forget that the United States, who have played major role in sponsoring previous peace talks between Israel and Arabs, have expressed lack-luster attitude towards the resumption of these negotiations and does not see them as beneficial to its long term interests.
Despite the current hopeful signs of upcoming era of temporary stability in the region, many dangerous factors are still lurking beneath the surface. While the Lebanese question seem to be settling into a workable arrangement for the country, the question of Hezbollah’s arms has left many to ponder the possibility of real peace in that country. Syria’s role in Lebanon has not only managed to win the battle of the wits with the West but have considerably been strengthened. By keeping its strong ties with Hezbollah and an open highway for arming it, Syria stands to gain much in any future conflict with Israel. The demand from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni to cease support for Hezbollah and Hamas as preconditions to the resumption of negotiations between the two countries, are indicative of the dismal future for these talks.
The Iranian question remains wide open and Syria’s disentanglement from such relations might not be as easy as it seems. Although President Bashar Assad have mocked the recently reported preconditions of distancing Syria from its strategic relations with Iran as a foreign policy dictate issue which equals Syria’s demand from Israel to distance itself from the United States, yet the relationship of Syria and Iran goes further than strategic alliance. Syria started its relationships with Iran during the Shah’s era and the opening of these relationships in the 60’s was through the religious establishment in Iran at the time. Under the late Assad, the relationships went further to protect the regime from Saddam’s insatiable appetite for regime change in Syria. But with Bashar at the helm, this relationship has been upgraded to the first level and became web tangled economically and ideologically. Today, before Syria can think of the idea of distancing itself from Iran it must be highly incentivized financially and politically, something that only the United States and its Arab allies in the region can offer.
Can President Bashar Assad break away from his current position to directly address the overwhelmingly opposed Israeli public and make a case for him to get back the Golan Heights as Sadat did in 1977? Can Prime Minister Olmerts reach out to his cabinet and Knesset members and make a case for giving back the same Heights in exchange for peace with Syria today? This author sincerely doubts both scenarios and for good reason. The possibility of war today between Syria and Israel is nil, therefore a negative incentive for peace deal is non-existent and the Modus Vivendi status quo seems befitting both countries. However, this does not mean that both countries should not pursue peace. Peace is always a noble goal and peace seekers are the “Blessed Ones” according to the heavenly messenger of peace. However, it is the courage that is lacking today among the two leaders seeking peace, Bashar’s inability to break-out of his father’s straight jacket of Arab Solidarity and Nationalism and Olmert’s thinly disguised lack of political will in making peace for the right reasons. Neither have leadership quality today and neither can lead their respective countries to a peace deal.
تعليقات