The Israeli-Arab conflict is like riding a roller coaster at the amusement park. One day you’re at the nadir and the next you’re hitting the heights. Today just might’ve been a good day. Israel and Syria publicly conceded that they are negotiating under Turkish auspices for a peace settlement.
The Times’ Ethan Bronner captures the most significant aspect of this development as far as Israeli policy is concerned; it concedes the abject failure of the U.S. and Israeli approach toward both Lebanon and Syria:
For Israel — which has watched the Palestinian group Hamas take over Gaza and gain ground in the West Bank, and the Lebanese group Hezbollah display raw power in Beirut — an effort to pull Syria away from Iran could produce enormous benefits. An announcement on Wednesday of a peace deal that gives Hezbollah the upper hand in Lebanon’s government probably added to Israel’s sense of urgency.
The last sentence is key. Hezbollah’s recent violent temper tantrum by which it captured, for all intents and purposes, much of Beirut appears to have essentially capsized the opposition. In this week’s peace agreement, Hezbollah won the veto power–sought in vain for months–over major political decisions facing the cabinet. Though a minority, Hezbollah is on the ascendancy.
In negotiating with Syria, Israel is conceding the obvious: the longer it waits for a deal the weaker its position will be. It has failed to subdue Hezbollah through war. The latter only became stronger and a more dangerous enemy. Olmert is admitting the only way to tame Hezbollah is to go to the source and see if you can get Syria to pull the plug.
Syria too, while in a superior position, realizes that Iran cannot bolster it in the long-term. With the possibility of a new Democratic administration looking more favorably on Syria, the time to strike for Bashir Assad seems now.
In making this decision, one of two things has happened vis a vis U.S.-Israel relations. Either Olmert has decided to go against Bush’s wishes in this embrace of Syrian negotiations; or Bush himself has given Olmert the green light. Either way, the Bush Administration is also admitting the abject failure of its own confrontational policy toward Syria; and the abject failure of its so-called alliance with the Lebanese democratic government. The Siniora government is a paper tiger as is the Bush presidency. Olmert himself is little more than one too. But he, at least, seems to be facing the diplomatic music.
Condi Rice mouthed her typical irrelevancies and inanities about the Syria announcement, which clearly could not have pleased her or Bush:
We would welcome any steps that might lead to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Obviously, we are working very hard on the Palestinian-Israeli track, which is the most mature track,” she said. “That is the track that is now well along in the bilateral negotiations and we have an opportunity to get an agreement by the end of the year.”
By what stretch of the imagination are the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on “a more mature track” or liable to lead to “an agreement by the end of the year??”
In the event that this negotiation succeeds (still a bit of a long shot I’m afraid), I’d nominate the Turkish premier, Recep Erdogan, for a Nobel Peace Prize. Jimmy Carter should be the one to give it to him.
It’s amusing that Bronner gives prominence to the vapid chatter of Dore Gold pooh-poohing the talks and warning with characteristically over-the-top rhetoric about the dangers of returning the Golan:
In Israel…many strategists and generals have said that giving up the strategic advantage of the Heights in exchange for promises or even written treaties makes no sense.
“In a period in which Iran is on the march and extending its influence from Lebanon to Iraq, for Israel to consider giving up the Golan barrier would be a strategic error of the highest order,” said Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and a former official and adviser to conservative governments under the Likud Party, which is now the opposition.
“You have to make a cold assessment whether Israel could drive a wedge between Syria and Iran,” Mr. Gold said. “Unfortunately, in the present period, Iran has Syria within its grip to a far greater extent than it did in the 1990s when previous negotiations with the Syrians were held.”
Notice Gold provides absolutely no proof that “Iran has Syria within its grip.” On the contrary, the very fact that these talks are proceeding means that Syria does not want to be under Iran’s thumb. Bronner offers two full paragraphs of Gold’s pablum to one sentence in rebuttal from the dovish Ran Cohen. That tells you something about Bronner’s priorities.
I wrote a long e-mail to Bronner noting my criticism of his last profile of Israeli Arabs. He never replied. With previous N.Y. Times correspondents like James Bennett and Steven Erlanger, they always replied to me even when I disagreed with them. This too tells you something about Bronner’s priorities.
Ah, springtime in Lebanon, the birds are singing, the sun is shining, and the Party of God is in charge. The joy the laughter…………….
In September 2007 Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear installation under construction. This is what RS said at the time:
From Maariv: “There have been a number of security officials who said recently that “now of all times it is especially important to engage in negotiations, which will reduce greatly the danger of deterioration into war.”
RS: Wouldn’t you think that they’d have thought of this BEFORE violating Syrian sovereignty and blowing one of their military installations to kingdom come? Seems mighty foolish for the Israeli spooks to go to Assad and say: “Umm, Mr. President, let’s just forget about what happened last week and start over–shall we?”
Well it looks like that is exactly what happened.
RS also said: For any Israeli to assume that there will not be a dear and savage price to pay for this action would be the height of foolishness.
In spite of the fact that Israel blew up a Syrian installation and killed Hizballah leader Mougniyah, Syria is negotiating with Israel. In fact, these operations probably strengthened Israel’s negotiating position.
@amir:
Yr theory is silly. Israel tried the ultimate act of military force in invading Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah and thereby bloody Syria. It didn’t work. Besides, Assad publicly begged Israel to negotiate even before the Mugniyeh killing & bombing of the installation. It didn’t need to do those things to get Syria to the table. These negotiations are happening despite those acts, not because of them.
bush makes more sense than this blog.
the millions of poor syrians and lebanese need help.
baath, syrian socialist nationalist, hizbolla leaders, and mid-level staffers are just the wrong medicine.
iran’s fake revolution, like the soviet directed post wwii reengineering serves one purpose to assure good life to the unelected small ruling clique.
free people should be on permanent protest missions against such criminal systems.
praising assad, nasrallah or ahmedinejad is a little sick.
I never said that the negotiations are taking place because of the aforementioned actions. I said “in spite of”. You said “despite”. I don’t see a big gap there. But the fact that they are taking place without the “savage price” you promised us and the fact that as you say Syria is begging Israel to negotiate is a sign of weakness on Syria’s part and not strength. It’s pretty clear that if Israel had started negotiating with Syria earlier they would not have been able to take out its nuclear installation. A Syria close to nuclear capability would be a tougher negotiating partner than one who just had its nuclear plant easily dismantled without any repercussions. I admit that the Lebanon war weakened Israel’s position vis-a-vis Syria. It would be nice if you could admit that now and then Israel does something right, like taking out Syria’s nuclear facility.
Who the hell cares whether the negotiations are a sign of weakness or strength. That’s immaterial except to people who like to measure national testosterone levels as you appear to do.
If you want to talk about weakness, I can’t think of a country weaker than Israel (unless perhaps the U.S.) diplomatically & politically.
Syria had no nuclear capability and it’s not even clear whether they would have ever had one even if Israel hadn’t bombed it. You don’t just snap yr fingers to create a nuclear weapon. It takes years, including high levels of scientific & technical expertise & a litany of raw materials. I have great doubt that Syria could ever have mustered enough of this to have even come close to succeeding.
It was WRONG to bomb that facility. Someday Israel’s sovereignty is going to be violated in a similar way and you’re going to be screaming bloody murder & I’ll tell you “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Peace and negotiations are right. I’ve been advocating Israel-Syria negotiations here for over a year. Olmert did the right thing here though of course he did it far too late.
Your confusing the goose for the gander. Israel’s sovereignty is violated constantly by Syrias proxys/allies Hamas and Hizballah (Hizballah before the war).
You have got to be kidding. Syria is an Iranian proxy in all but name. Assad himself is a weak leader and a member of a minority sect. And you think that Israel should sit on its ass and wait until it has the bomb. The only reason Olmert is doing this is to divert attention from his legal troubles.
Technical Observation
Every body assumes after Hirosh. and Nagasak. that an atomic bomb is the only form of
NWMD. A dirty bombs into the sea of Galili or several + some dirty suicide bombers in TA
and Jerusalem is always a possibiliy. The scond assumption about complexity and materials etc. is an assumption. Sorry but El-baradi or what is his name is totally useless or on the pay. Also this week Russia and China announced nuclear coop. Also North Korea could have used Syria to store and play with all kinds of nuclear technologies.
Today a country like Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Argentina can produce Atomic bonb in about a year or two at the most. Bombing this place is Syria was a service to humanity any way you put it. Just to identify my self the Jewes in El-Halil should be bulldozered out totally now.
@amir:
Not at all. You seem to be forgetting that Israel actually occupied sovereign Lebanese land for 18 yrs. & before that assassinated Palestinian leaders in Beirut almost at will. Not to mention Shebaa Farms which Israel concedes it has no claim to but so far refuses to return to Lebanon or Syria (one of which actually HAS sovereignty depending on who you ask).
@Bani:
You may think a dirty bomb is a possibility but it is at best a distant possibility. The complexity of building a nuclear weapon is not an ‘assumption’ it is a reality. If were merely an untested assumption then Iran would have one already. Look how long it took India, Pakistan, N. Korea & any number of other nuclear powers to achieve their capability. And what particular expertise do you have that nuclear experts–who’ve weighed in on this subject & disagreed w. you–don’t have??
It is far more likely that Assad used the nuclear installation as N. Korea did–as a bargaining chip & that it never really intended to seriously pursue nuclear technology. Assad built the facility to pressure Israel & the U.S. into realizing if they didn’t bargain w. him that he could pursue the N. Korea route & go nuclear. This theory has been published in the MSM & I think it’s highly credible.
“A year or 2 at most???!” What planet are you on? Iran would have the bomb if that were the case. Or are Iranian scientists less capable than Japanese, Argentinian, Swiss?
Bombing the Syrian installation wasn’t a ‘service to humanity.’ It was service to Ehud Olmert & the IDF’s popularity ratings which had taken a severe beating in the past 2 yrs.
RS: “It is far more likely that Assad used the nuclear installation as N. Korea did–as a bargaining chip”
So if this true, by blowing up the installation Israel weakened Syria’s bargaining position, which is what I said.
@amir:
No, you misunderstood what I said. Syria never intended to create a nuclear weapon. It wanted to APPEAR as if it was doing so. To go through the motions to make the U.S. & Israel THINK it was creating such a program so it could give them pause to consider that it would be better to negotiate than consider a Syria that went nuclear.
At best, Israel prob. bombed an installation that was a nuclear Potemkin Village.
And how do you know that the Syrian effort was a sham. Are you in touch with Assad?
Bill, Syria wanted the US to think it had a WMD program because that kind of disinformation worked out so well for Saddam Hussein.
@Bill Pearlman:
I didn’t make up the idea nor get it straight from Assad. I read it in the MSM. If you weren’t so snarky so often I’d actually do the work to find the reference for you.