The indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations currently taking place
through Turkish mediation have become quite focused and have been
officially confirmed by the two parties. A move towards direct
negotiations could be expedited, now that a long leg of talks
towards reaching this stage has been completed.
It is inevitable that Israel's internal political developments -
mainly the investigations of corruption charges against Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert - will take their toll on the negotiations
whether Olmert is charged and forced to resign or not. According to
Israeli law, it is possible to avoid dissolving the Knesset and
going to early elections if a simple majority of its members (61
MKs) support a new candidate for prime minister. Olmert announced
his readiness to call for early party elections, without fixing a
date. This was perceived as foot-dragging to stay in office as long
as possible. His coalition partners pressed him to set a date for a
party vote for a new leader, hinting that they would support a new
bill to dissolve the Knesset if he failed to do so. Faced with the
possibility of an impending government crisis leading to the
dissolution of his coalition and early national elections, he
agreed to set a date for the party election in September - aborting
the opposition's bid to dissolve the Knesset, and prolonging his
coalition's tenure.
The Kadima election will still allow the formation of a new
government led by its newly elected leader without dissolving the
Knesset and going to national elections. This seems to be a
temporary solution. Kadima's major coalition partner, the Labor
party, argues that Olmert has lost credibility in the eyes of the
Israeli public and that he should step down regardless of the
investigation's results. Olmert is nevertheless holding his ground
and set on running again for the Kadima leadership come September.
Three months down the road, a new crisis could erupt and early
national elections could still be held. Meanwhile, the current
government is proceeding with its negotiations with Syria.
Needless to say, going to early elections, as the opposition
demands, will mean a further delay in the negotiations or even
their total collapse. The right-wing parties are pushing for early
elections, hoping that Netanyahu will win, simply to prevent the
conclusion of any peace agreement with Syria that would lead to
Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
Looking for a Favorable Deal
In effect, this is not the first time during the last 15 years that
Syrian-Israeli back-channel negotiations over the occupied Syrian
Golan Heights have been held. And these ongoing negotiations will
possibly be added to the list of past attempts that had been on the
very verge of achieving results and then stopped short of that
goal.
The Syrian leadership, in spite of its interest in reaching a peace
agreement with Israel, cannot give up its ambitions for a regional
leadership role, and will always look for a deal that can guarantee
both. In order to maintain their regional leadership, they will
refrain from making any concessions on a number of fixed positions
- positions that have traditionally formed the framework of Syrian
policies and political actions concerning the return of the
occupied Golan Heights or the settling of the Arab-Israeli
conflict. To counter Western - mainly American - efforts to isolate
Syria, the al-Assad regime was building and strengthening its
alignment with radical movements in the region, such as Hizbullah
and Hamas, while maintaining special relations with Iran. This
would provide Syria with a wide margin for maneuvering and
bargaining in its efforts to survive the pressure and to play a
regional role.
Evidence suggests that the current Syrian leadership is concerned
with reaching a peace agreement with Israel that would allow it to
come out of its state of United States-led international isolation.
The Syrians do not hide their fears, voicing their recriminations
against Washington, whom they accuse of weaving conspiracies
against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the same way they did
against former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The Syrians argue
that U.S. policy against them aims to serve long-term Israeli and
American interests and to pave the way for securing Israeli
military dominance and hegemony over the region. Israel will thus
be the only military superpower in the Middle East with a nuclear
option, allowing it to impose its will on its neighbors.
Ironically, the Syrians believe that the American interest to get
out of the Iraq quagmire in a face-saving manner plays in their
favor and hampers the American ability to take action against
Syria. On the contrary, they believe that the time is ripe for
striking a good deal with both Israel and the U.S.
The Golan Heights - More Than a Security Issue
The core of the Israeli-Syrian differences over the Golan Heights
will likely concentrate on the security aspect because of their
strategic location overlooking the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias) and
the Israeli kibbutzim in that region. Israel can argue that the
presence of the Syrian army there, mainly the artillery, poses a
serious threat to an area that was Israeli-populated before 1967.
This issue could be addressed by adopting the Sinai method which
was agreed upon between Israel and Egypt. Israel withdrew from the
Sinai Peninsula to its international borders with Egypt. The Sinai
returned to Egyptian sovereignty, but with three zones of gradual
arms limitation under the supervision of multinational forces - to
the satisfaction of Israeli security concerns.
But an examination of the Israeli policy and political statements
shows that it's not only security concerns that are on Israel's
mind. Israel, tempted by its prolonged occupation of the Golan
Heights and the facts it has created on the ground, including
exploiting natural resources, had decided earlier in 1981 to annex
the Golan Heights and applied Israeli law and jurisdiction to it.
There are around 20,000 Jewish settlers in the Golan, living in 30
settlements that were built and expanded within the framework of
Israeli government policies, according to which the Golan Heights
form part of the land of Israel. Some Knesset members are among the
residents of the Jewish settlements there.
In light of the recent talk about Syrian-Israeli negotiations and
the possibility of Olmert's government making concessions regarding
the Golan Heights or parts of it, some 61 MKs took the initiative
to sign a petition calling upon the Knesset to issue a law
stipulating that a two-thirds majority vote in the Knesset is
required to accept concessions on any part of the Golan.
Public opinion polls in Israel show that a majority of 53-57% are
against Israel withdrawing from the Golan Heights and handing it
back to Syria. They claim that the Syrian front has been quiet
since the disengagement agreements after the 1973 war - not a
single shot has been fired from there towards Israel; therefore,
there is no need to withdraw and make peace with Syria.
However, the Israeli decision to annex the Golan Heights and
consider that area part of Israel is in contravention of
international law and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention,
and the annexation has not been recognized by any country in the
world. Additionally, the Druze Arab population of the Golan - which
slightly exceeds the number of the Jewish settlers there - define
themselves as Syrian citizens, maintain relations with their
homeland Syria, and aspire to the day of their liberation and
return to Syrian sovereignty.
A Contentious Strip of Land
In all its past attempts at negotiating a settlement with Syria,
Israel has insisted on keeping parts of the occupied Heights under
its control. But the core of the dispute is a thin strip of land
between the two countries. For Syria, it would allow it to retain
its access to the Sea of Galilee; for Israel, it would prevent
Syria from doing just that. Defining to which borders Israel should
withdraw has always been front and center stage, but in the
background is access to water.
It is a known fact that until June 4, 1967, Syria was in control of
that strip of land, which was actually a part of Mandatory
Palestine, along, but outside, the Syrian borders, and it defined
the boundaries separating Syria from Israel as of June 4, 1967. The
traditional Syrian stand since the end of the June 1967 war has
been that Israel should withdraw to those lines. In contrast,
Israel has the presumption to claim that Syria should abide by the
international borders between Syria and Mandatory Palestine and to
leave to Israel that strip of land, which it had controlled since
the 1948 war until June1967 - claiming that this land is part of
Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel). Thus the dispute between Israel
and Syria has always been whether Israel should withdraw to the
1948 Armistice Lines (the June 4, 1967 lines), as Syria demands, or
to the international borders between Mandatory Palestine and Syria,
as Israel wants.
Syria has always insisted on retaining its access to the shores of
the Sea of Galilee, and it seems that it will not be easy for the
Syrian leadership to give up this long-standing position. Similarly
and within the same context, Syrian negotiators have constantly
referred to the precedent set by the Egyptian-Israeli agreement,
which returned up to the last inch of land in the Sinai Peninsula
after Egypt insisted with admirable obduracy to recover it - even
delving into exhaustive negotiations over the Hilton Taba Hotel
until it regained every bit of Egyptian land. Thus it is inevitable
that the Syrian leadership - which condemned Anwar Sadat's
initiative in 1977 and took a stand against it at the time - would
be unable to retreat from that position and accept anything that
falls short of the results Sadat had achieved.
According to media reports, a high-ranking Syrian official, when
asked about the matter of sovereignty over the Golan, said "Syria
is looking after its main interests." And when asked about the
possibility of Syria's leasing the land to Israel for a number of
years, he said that the most important thing is that Syria
eventually regains its sovereignty over the land. This answer
leaves the door open for speculations that Syria may consider its
goal of regaining sovereignty over the Heights could be fulfilled
while the land is under lease to Israeli management. Some reports
speak already about tourist and industrial parks on these leased
lands as part of the arrangements with Syria.
Paradigms to Follow
There are two previous paradigms Syria can learn from: The first is
the Egyptian paradigm, which was originally based on the principle
of recovering land as land, while accepting conditions of
restricting military presence within the Sinai. The Sinai was
eventually divided into three zones and the type of weapons allowed
in each was defined, while Israel was unable to retain an inch of
Egyptian land. Egypt claimed that it regained its national
sovereignty over the Sinai, and Israel claimed that it achieved
substantial arrangements to address its security concerns. The
second is the Jordanian paradigm, whereby Jordan regained
sovereignty over Jordanian land in Wadi 'Araba with long-term
leasing agreements on parts of these lands, to the satisfaction of
Israel.
The essence of each of these agreements between Israel and any
party involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict remains the issue of
normalization as a basic and debatable issue. However, it is
difficult for one to imagine a situation in which a peace agreement
is signed between Syria and Israel without both sides being ready
to normalize relations even at the official level, as is the case
currently between Egypt and Israel. As for the grassroots level,
experience has shown that true peace and normalization between
Israel and its Arab neighbors cannot be achieved without a
comprehensive peace settlement that ends the Israeli occupation of
all Arab lands and leads to the creation of an independent and
sovereign Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital.
Any progress on the Syrian-Israeli negotiation track will, in turn,
open the door for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle
East, by creating a better climate for progress on both the
Palestinian and Lebanese tracks, including the role of Hamas in
Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon, due to their special relations
with Syria and its influence on them. This relationship will always
be controlled by "major Syrian interests," as Syrian spokesmen
say.
The European Model
In the final analysis, we should realize that we live in a changing
world, where even some classic concepts and definitions are being
rethought. The European experience, with its centuries of bloody
wars among a number of European countries, has proven that the
insistence on political boundaries and the exercise of sovereignty
in the traditional sense are not the only factors that guarantee
peoples' well-being and happiness. Additionally, the funds spent on
war will only bring poverty and destruction. Europe has realized,
after having paid a hefty price with human souls, that the economy
is the basis for power and that fighting wars to gain more land and
regions has not been beneficial. It only fed their rulers' lust for
control and possession, and who sometimes resorted to arousing
nationalistic and chauvinistic feelings among the public in order
to justify and mitigate the fire of their wars.
Today, Europe has become a world economic power, and borders
between the two deadly enemies, France and Germany, are something a
traveler or a salesperson hardly feels any more. Europe has gone
down the path of economic unity and has moved on towards
institution-building for advanced models of political unity that
can preserve the national character of each individual state, and,
at the same time, reconcile them with common European
interests.
People in the Middle East need to realize - especially
land-grabbing fanatics who can only think of controlling more and
more Arab land - that the future lies in the economy as a basis for
people's well-being. A Middle East free of weapons of mass
destruction, strife and wars, and that acknowledges peoples' right
to freedom, self-determination and independence, and that devotes
all its resources to construction and development, is the only one
that can offer a better future for all the children of the region.