Syria and Israel

It's heartening to hear that Syria and Israel are in peace talks. From Israel's point of view, a stable peace agreement with Syria that reduced the flow of weapons to Hezbollah would be much more valuable than the Golan Heights. And for Syria, accomplishing something concrete like regaining the Golan Heights would be much more valuable than maintaining complicity in the killing of some Jews. A deal of this sort would also, it seems to me, help Syria regain more freedom of action from Iran which I assume is part of the appeal to Damascus.

It's interesting that Turkey is serving as the intermediary, a minor coup of Turkish statesmanship and perhaps more to the point a reflection of the United States bizarre abandonment of the idea of trying to play a constructive role in the region.

Comments

Everybody is an appeaser this days….

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | May 21, 2008 10:27 AM

Why does Israel hate the Jews?

Posted by szr | May 21, 2008 10:31 AM

...a reflection of the United States bizarre abandonment of the idea of trying to play a constructive role in the region.

The region will be much better off without us.

Posted by Jim W | May 21, 2008 10:51 AM

Speaking of the Golan Heights, I've always wondered why nobody proposes, as a face-saving measure and attempt to break the diplomatic impasse, that Syria officially lease the region to Israel for a set period of time and payment. If Israel is now seriously willing to give up the region, and quickly, then it's a moot point.

Posted by Kraz | May 21, 2008 10:54 AM

Syria certainly has more to fear, in the long run, from the Islamists than the Israelis. Syria would do well to make her peace with Israel and anyone else who will be a reliable enemy of Sunni Islamist jihad. The ruling faction in Syria, the Alawis, are a heterodox sect and considered apostates by more orthodox Muslims. (Interestingly the Alawis appear to have borrowed or copied some Christian ideas into their religion). Syria is a good place now for Christians, Alawis, Druz and other non-Muslims, and is one of the few places in the Middle East with real religious tolerance (except for the Muslim Brotherhood, who were paid at Hama in the same bloody and brutal coin that they would have paid to others if they ever got into power.) If Islamists makes more headway in the region, the Assads will be among the first whose heads will role.

Posted by Hector | May 21, 2008 11:09 AM

Isn't Israel's willingness to sit down and negotiate with a state sponsor of terror appeasement? Will the Bush administration and the McCain campaign be making statements shaming the Israelis and likening them to Chamberlain? And why doesn't the Obama campaign point this out? Ask McCain if he thinks Israel's willingness to meet with Syria is tantamount to appeasement.

Is it January yet?

Posted by Bagel | May 21, 2008 11:17 AM

Isn't Israel's willingness to sit down and negotiate with a state sponsor of terror appeasement? Will the Bush administration and the McCain campaign be making statements shaming the Israelis and likening them to Chamberlain? And why doesn't the Obama campaign point this out? Ask McCain if he thinks Israel's willingness to meet with Syria is tantamount to appeasement.

Is it January yet?

Posted by Bagel | May 21, 2008 11:19 AM

Will the Bush administration and the McCain campaign be making statements shaming the Israelis and likening them to Chamberlain?

Will the media even bother asking McCain why when Israel talks to Syria or Hamas or Hezbollah, it's diplomacy, but when Obama suggests doing exactly the same thing, it's appeasement?

Posted by LFC | May 21, 2008 11:21 AM

Goddamn it, Israel. After this horrific act of appeasement, I think we all know that it is now just a matter of time before Syria invades Poland.

Posted by J.B. | May 21, 2008 11:22 AM

Syria's "complicity in the killing of some Jews" is a grotesque distortion of what the reality is: Syria helps fund the legitimate and morally righteous Resistance to Israeli Occupation and murderous persecution of the Palestinians. The only "complicity" is the complicity of zionist and crypto-zionist Jews in the killing of thousands of Palestinians, the daily War Crimes inflicted against them by "The Jewish Homeland".

Posted by Trevor | May 21, 2008 11:45 AM

Interesting on all counts.

I'm reading your book and really enjoying it. good job. I highly recommend it. Glad someone is writing about these issues.

Posted by Mimikatz | May 21, 2008 11:49 AM

after it's all over and the dust has settled, Syria and Lebanon are going to turn to Turkey and say, "O.K.? Now can we have our water?"

because the politics of water are the real long-running issue in that part of the world...

Posted by Diana | May 21, 2008 11:57 AM

"after it's all over and the dust has settled, Syria and Lebanon are going to turn to Turkey and say, "O.K.? Now can we have our water?""

And Turkey will turn back them and say "NO!" As much as Turks like to complain about the war in Iraq, the war has diverted the world's attention away from Turkey's latest water grab. Iraq will be the biggest loser in the diversion of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. But they don't have a functioning government to complain about it.

Posted by fostert | May 21, 2008 12:08 PM

"Why does Israel hate the Jews?

Posted by szr | May 21, 2008 10:31 AM"

No fair! You're not allowed to win a thread with only the second comment!

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 12:40 PM

Mor evidence of Senator Obamas' relationship with anti-Israel activists.

?Obama cribbed "sore" metaphor from his Palestinian buddy Rashid Khalidi
By Israel Insider staff May 20, 2008

Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story

When he termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a "constant sore" last week, Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be echoing the comments days before of his friend Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian professor who actively advocates the elimination of Israel. In an interview with the Atlantic published earlier this month, Obama was asked whether he thinks Israel is a "drag on America's reputation overseas." Obama replied: "No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy."

Obama's description of Israel as an infectious sore drew criticism, but no one could explain where this unusual phrasing may have originated. Until now.

World Net Daily yesterday uncovered the fact that Obama's remarks came just five days after The Nation magazine published an opinion piece by Khalidi, titled "Palestine: Liberation Deferred," in which the Palestinian activist opened by calling the "Palestinian question" a "running sore." In the first paragraph of his op-ed, he wrote: "The 'Palestine Question' has been with us for sixty years. During this time it has become a running sore, its solution appearing ever more distant."

Khalidi's solution is the dissolution of Israel. He laments the Palestinian Authority's stated acceptance of a Palestinian state "only" in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem. He argues Israel should be dissolved and replaced with a binational system of government. Khalidi has previously called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state. He has supported Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression."

Khalidi's ties to Obama were first exposed by WND in February. "According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004."

"Sources at the University told WND that Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and that the two families dined together a number of times. The sources said the Obama's even babysat the Khalidi children. Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi, who spoke to WND in February." WND broke the story an Arab group run by Khalidi's wife, Mona, received crucial funding from the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit, while Obama served on the board of the Fund. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website, and was compensated $6,000 per year for his services in 1999 and 2000. Obama served alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Obama's campaign did not immediately reply to telephone and e-mail inquiries from WND asking if his interview with the Atlantic borrowed any phraseology from Khalidi. But the re-appearance of the "sore" in Obama's mouth days after it issued from his Palestinian friend suggests that the anti-Israel contagion, like herpes, persists and spreads in ways that the Presidential candidate apparently cannot successfully suppress however much it might be in his interest to do so."

Posted by SLC | May 21, 2008 12:55 PM

The real back story here is that the Israelis and the Syrians have been open to peace talks for a while, but the Israelis stonewalled for a significant period of time, not because of domestic or regional considerations, but because the U.S. told them not to negotiate.

So not only is Bush screwing up his own Middle Eastern wars, he's been standing in the way of a treaty that would make one of our closest allies more secure, because he doesn't like Syria!

The irony is, now that it looks like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert finally grew a pair and decided to act in his country's best interest, he's been so weakened by corruption charges that it will be next to impossible for him to secure ratification of any treaty that he signs with Syria's President, Basher Al-Assad. The only hope is that he resigns soon and his successor (likely to be Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni, who has been quietly positioning herself as his logical replacement), will have enough political capital to get approval of a deal that is sure to be controversial.

Finally, since Turkey is moderating the talks, it gets credit for any success, while the U.S. will still be at fault if it fails because of our counterproductive meddling. 10 years ago, Israeli-Syrian talks without the U.S. as mediator would have been inconceivable. Now it's barely surprising, such is the precipitous fall of our prestige. Way to go Bushie!

Posted by Drew | May 21, 2008 1:40 PM

Is it too late to try and give that whole area back to the Ottomans?

Posted by daveNYC | May 21, 2008 1:41 PM

The real back story here is that the Israelis and the Syrians have been open to peace talks for a while, but the Israelis stonewalled for a significant period of time, not because of domestic or regional considerations, but because the U.S. told them not to negotiate.

So not only is Bush screwing up his own Middle Eastern wars, he's been standing in the way of a treaty that would make one of our closest allies more secure, because he doesn't like Syria!

The irony is, now that it looks like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert finally grew a pair and decided to act in his country's best interest, he's been so weakened by corruption charges that it will be next to impossible for him to secure ratification of any treaty that he signs with Syria's President, Basher Al-Assad. The only hope is that he resigns soon and his successor (likely to be Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni, who has been quietly positioning herself as his logical replacement), will have enough political capital to get approval of a deal that is sure to be controversial.

Finally, since Turkey is moderating the talks, it gets credit for any success, while the U.S. will still be at fault if it fails because of our counterproductive meddling. 10 years ago, Israeli-Syrian talks without the U.S. as mediator would have been inconceivable. Now it's barely surprising, such is the precipitous fall of our prestige. Way to go Bushie!

Posted by Drew | May 21, 2008 1:42 PM

What's funny to me is that recently Israel figher jets bombedSyria, at that supposed nuclear plant they were building. And then both of them acted as if nothing happened! When asked about it, they'd change the subject.

Imagine if, say, Mexico air force's bombed Disney World. There'd be serious discussion on FOX news whether or not to nuke Mexico City.

I have no sympathy for Syria's dictatorship though. The Cedar Revolution was when Syria was kicked out of Lebanon, not just an outdoor party with Lebanese babes in hot Jordache jeans. (Poppy Bush gave Lebanon to Syria so that they would join the coalition against Saddam. Now that's diplomacy!)

Posted by Peter K. | May 21, 2008 2:52 PM

DaveNYC,

I believe that the royal house of Spain still claims legal title to Palestine (and presumably Lebanon) dating back to the Crusades. General Franco
claimed rightful sovereignty over Jerusalem to the end of his life, which was possibly the reason why he never recognized the State of Israel. I think the Knights of Malta and perhaps the Russian government may also claim legal title to the Holy Land, based on inheritance from the Crusades.

Posted by Hector | May 21, 2008 3:21 PM

"What's funny to me is that recently Israel figher jets bombedSyria, at that supposed nuclear plant they were building. And then both of them acted as if nothing happened! When asked about it, they'd change the subject."

Yeah, everyone came out of that looking weird. My theory is that Syria was doing something there it wasn't supposed to do and didn't want to get caught, which is why they didn't complain as loud as they could have, but that what Israel hit turned out not to be an actual nuclear plant anywhere near capable of producing nukes, so Israel tried to pretend to the best of its ability the strike didn't happen, kind of like the police busting in someone's door to seize drugs without a warrant, discover that there are no drugs but that the resident is watching kiddie porn. No one would come out of that looking good.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 4:02 PM

Hector is so too Christian to recognize a joke.

Posted by Reality Man | May 21, 2008 4:13 PM

Matt: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas have been driven into a mutual alliance by the ultra-aggressiveness of the Bush administration. Some of the matchups are bizarre (Iran and Hamas) and none of them would be so cozy--even the Iran-Hezbollah thing had gone quite cold after the early Khomeini nutty idea of exporting the revolution met reality.

Nobody, nobody wants to live on this knife edge. Actually all of these parties are looking for a way of mormalising things. Hamas want political recognition of their 2006 election victory and were seeking to show they could run Gaza; Hezbollah want to cash in on their credibilty from their 2006 successes and be properly recognised; Syria wants the Golan heights back and recognition that Lebanon is in its sphere; Iran wants recognition of its role in the region, its cicvil nuclear programnme and normalised trade. They have all been trying to deal with a needlessly belligerent US administration.

None of them are going to back out of this until it in their interest to--until the threat to them is removed.

Excellent post on Lebanon by the way.

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 21, 2008 4:35 PM

Don't worry, Olmert probably doesn't have the time to cut a deal now that taking baksheesh has become a prosecutable crime in Israel. Besides, there's no deal absent U.S. approval, which has been conspicuously not present and is likely to remain so until we elect a president.

Posted by eb | May 21, 2008 4:54 PM

eb, I would not pooh-pooh this grave error. First, Olmert is sending a wrong signal to Syria (any signal is wrong). Second, it can encourage other enemies of Israel, like Obama.

In my conspiratorial mind I see those surely fruitless talks as a sly plot to torpedo McCain candidacy, which would be deprived of a precious talking point (and what else McCain can talk about? Healthcare reform of his lame plans to save the environment by doing nothing)?

Possibly, the cunning Elders who really run the show figured that a sane President can be a more valuable ally than an insane one. The other possibility is that Israel tries to humor Turkey

Posted by piotr | May 21, 2008 5:48 PM

I think the Knights of Malta and perhaps the Russian government may also claim legal title to the Holy Land, based on inheritance from the Crusades.

I like that. That should be our new negotiation strategy to get the sides to agree. "Make peace or we'll give you back to the Russians."

Posted by daveNYC | May 21, 2008 5:54 PM

eb, I would not pooh-pooh this grave error. First, Olmert is sending a wrong signal to Syria (any signal is wrong). Second, it can encourage other enemies of Israel, like Obama.

In my conspiratorial mind I see those surely fruitless talks as a sly plot to torpedo McCain candidacy, which would be deprived of a precious talking point (and what else McCain can talk about? Healthcare reform of his lame plans to save the environment by doing nothing)?

Possibly, the cunning Elders who really run the show figured that a sane President can be a more valuable ally than an insane one. The other possibility is that Israel tries to humor Turkey

Posted by piotr | May 21, 2008 5:56 PM

eb, I would not pooh-pooh this grave error. First, Olmert is sending a wrong signal to Syria (any signal is wrong). Second, it can encourage other enemies of Israel, like Obama.

In my conspiratorial mind I see those surely fruitless talks as a sly plot to torpedo McCain candidacy, which would be deprived of a precious talking point (and what else McCain can talk about? Healthcare reform of his lame plans to save the environment by doing nothing)?

Possibly, the cunning Elders who really run the show figured that a sane President can be a more valuable ally than an insane one. The other possibility is that Israel tries to humor Turkey

Posted by piotr | May 21, 2008 6:14 PM

Any peace Israel makes will be only a maneuver. And even if made in good faith by some Israeli leader, the next one down the line will be some Zionist freak and abrogate it anyway.

There is no solution to Israel and the region except dissolution of the Israeli state - i.e. kill and marginalize the Zionist freaks and/or dissolve Israel as a state via the UN.

Pay me two billion in advance, it'll be done in 24 months.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 21, 2008 6:32 PM

I find incredibly laughable the assumptions that Hector proffers. The Alawi's are considered apostates by more orthodox muslims? Who are these orthodox muslims? What defines them as any unified entity? How do you know they all consider Alawi's apostates? Appear to have borrowed Christian ideas into their religion? This I find as laughable as the assertion that Sufism borrowed ideas of Greek paganism and Hinduisum as many others have made. And Hector, far larger numbers of civilians were slaughtered than were Brotherhood members. I wish people who didnt know what the hell they were talking about would simply keep their mouth shut.

Posted by Sid | May 21, 2008 6:33 PM

Re Sid

According to my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan, who is a Sunni Muslim, the Alawites are not considered to be Muslims by either the Sunnis or the Shiites.

Posted by SLC | May 21, 2008 7:03 PM

Plenty of Catholics and Southern Baptists don't consider the other group to be real Christians, either.

Posted by Angry Sam | May 21, 2008 11:58 PM

In the absence of any US effort to negotiate, it's not surprising that Turkey stepped in. The Turks are pretty much Israel's only ally in the region. The Turks may love their copies of Mein Kampf, but they share this Israeli love of American military hardware and smacking down the Arab neighbors. Turkey also happens to be the only other country in the middle east Israelis can go on vacation without risking life and limb. And Turkey's relationship has actually come a long way since the Turks massed troops on Syria's border in 1998. Meanwhile Syria would love the Golan and has been dying to come in from the cold as their regional influence wanes. Maybe everybody can get something they want! Viva negotiation!

Posted by GiantDuck | May 22, 2008 12:54 AM

In the absence of any US effort to negotiate, it's not surprising that Turkey stepped in. The Turks are pretty much Israel's only ally in the region. The Turks may love their copies of Mein Kampf, but they share this Israeli love of American military hardware and smacking down the Arab neighbors. Turkey also happens to be the only other country in the middle east Israelis can go on vacation without risking life and limb. And Turkey's relationship has actually come a long way since the Turks massed troops on Syria's border in 1998. Meanwhile Syria would love the Golan and has been dying to come in from the cold as their regional influence wanes. Maybe everybody can get something they want! Viva negotiation!

Posted by GiantDuck | May 22, 2008 12:57 AM

Angry Sam,

Catholics consider Southern Baptists and other Trinitarian Christians to be Christians, albeit heretical ones. I have no idea what the Southern Baptists think.

Alawites believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib was God Incarnate, which seems like a vague and distorted reflection of the Christian idea of the Incarnation, and which is contrary to the basic Muslim tenet that God is formless and does not incarnate Himself.

It is clear to anyone who devotes a moment's study that Alawites are apostates by Muslim standards (not that that's a bad thing) and that Islam demands the death penalty for apostasy. This may violate your politically correct fantasy that all religions are basically the same and of equal value, and Islam is no different from CHristianity. Sadly, it happens to be true.

Posted by Hector | May 22, 2008 8:36 AM

Again re: both SLC and Hector

Not considered to be muslims is very different from apostasy, please understand the subtle difference, though difficult it may be for both of you. Hindus, Christians, and Jews, not to mention Bahai's, are not considered to be muslims but because they were born into that religion, it does not mean they were apostates. And secondly, Hector, I don't know where you get off saying Islam demands the death penalty for apostasy when this is clearly an argument of much deliberation among Islamic scholars with no codified legal penalty. Please just read the responses to Luttwak's comments at NYT. I know this may violate your fantasy that all muslims are fanatics of a crazy religion, but please stop with the idiocy.

Posted by Sid | May 22, 2008 1:49 PM

Re Sid

Actually, according to my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan, many Muslims consider the Alawites to be apostates, although that is not a unanimous position. The big problem in Syria relative to the Alawites is that they virtually control the country, even though they constitute only 9% of the population. The Assad family belongs to the Alawite minority and the officer corps of the Syrian armed forces is heavily infiltrated by Alawites. I suspect that, should the Assad kleptocracy be overthrown and replaced by a Sunni dominated government, there will be a bloodbath as it will be get even time for the other segments of the population.

Posted by SLC | May 22, 2008 6:42 PM

SLC,

Uh, if Assad's 'kleptocracy' as you call it should happen to fall, it would be replaced by a bunch of Islamists who want nothing better than to drown Tel Aviv in blood and drive the Jews into the sea. Israel is much better off with the Baathist Party of Syria in the driver's seat, rather than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Honestly, who would you rather have on your northern border- an Arab Franco or an Arab Hitler?

Posted by Hector | May 22, 2008 10:21 PM