U.S. State Dept. reopens dialogue with Syria, suggests future Israel-Syria talks

[Ogre Mage]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069315.html

This is a pretty significant development.  Syria is a critical player in the quest for Middle East peace, largely because of its alliance with Iran and support for various militant groups.  What Syria wants is the Golan Heights (currently occupied by Israel) and to reestablish relations with the U.S.  In exchange for that, we will need to see evidence of a Syrian crackdown on the activities of local militant groups such has Hamas and especially Hezbollah. 

Obviously, any significant weakening of these groups would be helpful.  And negotiations with Syria might put pressure on Iran to come to the table also or alternatively leave it even more isolated that before.  Either way, it puts the U.S. in a stronger position.

This article suggests that Netanyahu will have to be dragged unwillingly to the negotiations and he has insisted that Israel will never give up the Golan Heights.  My guess is that Sec. Clinton may need to play the heavy here.

It remains to be seen if this will lead anywhere.  But an Israel-Syria treaty will be essential for broader peace.

[k-onmmunist]

Excellent. I hope this works.

[Ogre Mage]

Syrian President Bashar Assad says he is willing to negotiate for peace with Israel if the U.S. mediates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070314.html

The U.S. should pursue this, assuming Netanyahu can be dragged to the table, which will not be easy.  But Syria is signaling it is willing to deal and I believe such an agreement could be a realistic achievement.  Syria and Israel have tried for peace before and gotten close.  We did it with Egypt and Jordan and with much work it could be done here as well.

Assad's call for regional peace talks is interesting, but at present the Palestinian situation looks impossible.  The territory is divided between Fatah and Hamas who are against each other if not in outright war and there is disarray if not outright anarchy.  It's not at all clear who is in charge.  I don't see how they could abide by any agreements even if they wanted to.  And that's before even considering the right-wing government taking power in Israel.

A Syria-Israel treaty, or at least an understanding, should help push along the admittedly small chance of the stars aligning for a possible Israel-Palestine resolution.

[dead0man]

Israel won't (and shouldn't) give up the Golan Heights.  If that is a sticky wicket with Syria, nothing will get done.

[GMantis]

Israel won't (and shouldn't) give up the Golan Heights.  If that is a sticky wicket with Syria, nothing will get done.

To get peace with Egypt, Israel had to give up the Sinai. I very much doubt that Syria would be any more willing to abandon the Golan Heights than Egypt the Sinai, so there won't be any peace with Syria for a very long time if Israel refuses to give them up - and that's almost certain.
But I don't understand why you (and many others) think that no peace between and Israel is a good thing.

[dead0man]

But I don't understand why you (and many others) think that no peace between and Israel is a good thing.

Where did I say that?

[GMantis]

But I don't understand why you (and many others) think that no peace between and Israel is a good thing.

Where did I say that?

You said that Israel shouldn't give up the Golan Heights, which as you yourself agree probably would make a peace impossible.

[dead0man]

Peace is a great thing, but it's not going to happen if it requires giving back Golan Heights.  WAY too much of a security risk.  Maybe after a few years of peace between the peoples in the region, but not before that peace breaks out.  That would be very foolish.

[GMantis]

Peace is a great thing, but it's not going to happen if it requires giving back Golan Heights.  WAY too much of a security risk.  Maybe after a few years of peace between the peoples in the region, but not before that peace breaks out.  That would be very foolish.

Well, the Sinai was also surrendered gradually, but one can't really expect Syria to give up the Golan Heights, when the international consensus since 1945 is to forgo annexations as punishment for wars and when Egypt received the Sinai back. Remmember that when Egypt got back Sinai, there were also doomsayers who said that Israel would be too vulnerable without it.
In any case, territorial buffers in today's age are not as effective as they once were and probably are not worth continued hostility with all its negative consequences.

[dead0man]

The internets are conspiring against me posting in this thread tonight.

Well, the Sinai was also surrendered gradually, but one can't really expect Syria to give up the Golan Heights, when the international consensus since 1945 is to forgo annexations as punishment for wars and when Egypt received the Sinai back.

If neither are willing to give up their claim to the Heights to get peace, it's not just Israel that is being pigheaded about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's more than just a buffer.  It's a very strategic location, especially for anyone wanting to fire rockets into Israeli population centers.

They (Israel) can give up much of it, as they've offered before, but Syria is going to have give up some things too.  Like remaining buddies with Iran and their continued dicking around in Lebanon.

[GMantis]

The internets are conspiring against me posting in this thread tonight.

Well, the Sinai was also surrendered gradually, but one can't really expect Syria to give up the Golan Heights, when the international consensus since 1945 is to forgo annexations as punishment for wars and when Egypt received the Sinai back.

If neither are willing to give up their claim to the Heights to get peace, it's not just Israel that is being pigheaded about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's more than just a buffer.  It's a very strategic location, especially for anyone wanting to fire rockets into Israeli population centers.

They (Israel) can give up much of it, as they've offered before, but Syria is going to have give up some things too.  Like remaining buddies with Iran and their continued dicking around in Lebanon.

Of course the idea is for Syria is to recognize Israel and to stop supporting its destruction, as the peace with Egypt. If Syria is unwilling to abandon their alliance with Iran against Israel and their interference in Lebanon, there shouldn't be peace.
And why it is pigheaded of Syria to want the return of their sovereign territory, which all countries and international organizations recognize as Syrian?
Again I don't see why the Golan Heights should be treated different than the Sinai. The surrender of the Sinai also made Israel vulnerable to rocket attacks, but have there been any actual rocket attacks?

[dead0man]

Golan is a lot closer to the major population centers than the Sinai is.


It's all desert down there.

[GMantis]

Golan is a lot closer to the major population centers than the Sinai is.


It's all desert down there.

Actually, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are closer to the edge of the Sinai than to the Golan Heights or at least it's almost the same distance.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

In short, for Israel, the only deal could be: We give you Golan, you give us strong assurance of peace.

[k-onmmunist]

Israel won't (and shouldn't) give up the Golan Heights.  If that is a sticky wicket with Syria, nothing will get done.

Why wont they? Why shouldnt they?

[The Mikado]

Israel won't (and shouldn't) give up the Golan Heights.  If that is a sticky wicket with Syria, nothing will get done.

Why wont they? Why shouldnt they?

A militarized Golan Heights is an incredibly dangerous thing for Israel.  It's a ridiculously strategically important site.  Artillery pieces up there could shell practically the whole country, if I remember correctly.

Which is why the most sensible solution would be for the Golan to be a DMZ monitored by international peacekeepers at all times.  Or, even better, turn it into a total no-man's-land like the Korean border.  It'd be an improvement for Syria from having it occupied by Israel, and a vast improvement for Israel from surrendering it to Syria.

Back to the original topic: Syria is a key piece in a Mideast peace agreement, mainly because Syria is Iran's only ally and one of Hezbollah's two biggest sponsors.  If Syria can be dragged out of their orbit, they can either A: help us talk some sense into Iran, or B: leave the Iranians completely isolated in the Middle East.  Either solution would really help us.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

B: leave the Iranians completely isolated in the Middle East.  Either solution would really help us.

If Syria that important for Iran? Actually, do Iran really need Syria? That's convenient for them to have it, but would it be a big problem not to have it?

I don't see what can significantly carry Syria in the conflict with Iran and anyway I would be very surprised that Bachar El Assad does anything except for the maintain of its power.

[Ogre Mage]

Conflicting signals from Likud on talks with Syria:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLC970055

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070055.html

The statement by Arad about Palestinian negotiations being a more viable prospect than Syria is bull$hit.  There is no way that is the more resolvable track at this point. 

The conflicting signals from Likud suggest there is internal conflict about how to proceed (not surprising).  But at the least, it appears the possibility of talks is not impossible.

Part of Syria's usefulness to Iran lies in that the logical way to get Iranian aid to extremist groups attacking Israel is to send it through Syria.  And Syria itself also provides aid.  If Syria were to cut that off, getting Iranian aid to extremist groups becomes more difficult.  And they will be further weakened if Syria is no longer chipping in.

It remains to be seen how serious Assad is about this.  But if he receives the Golan as part of a treaty with Israel, I cannot imagine he would break the treaty and attack Israel.  The wrath of the world would come down on his head.  But there are understandable feelings of caution and there are ways of incrementally giving ground on the Golan to test if Syria will fulfill promises.

In terms of the U.S., an important marker will be if America decides to reinstate its ambassador to Syria.  If this happens, it is a sign that Washington feels the relationship with Syria is worth pursuing. 

I also read a story that Syria recently launched its first stock exchange, a sign that they are trying for economic reform.  I think the slow lifting or further imposition of U.S. and international sanctions based on Syrian behavior could be a useful bargaining chip.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-syria-market11-2009mar11,0,4427871.story

[dead0man]

One fear is that Syria will do what Lebanon or Gaza has done and allow non-state entities to attack Israel from their recently returned Golan and then claim they can do nothing to stop it.  Then cry to Europe and the UN when Israel defends herself.  Followed by the "proportional response" line of BS we are always fed afterwords by the anti-Zionists.

[Ogre Mage]

One fear is that Syria will do what Lebanon or Gaza has done and allow non-state entities to attack Israel from their recently returned Golan and then claim they can do nothing to stop it.  Then cry to Europe and the UN when Israel defends herself.  Followed by the "proportional response" line of BS we are always fed afterwords by the anti-Zionists.

Assad is an iron-fisted leader in his country, unlike the chaotic, leaderless mess in the Palestinian territory.  That is part of the interest -- there is a clear authority figure who can make things happen and/or be blamed if something terrible happens.

[Ogre Mage]

A Lebanese political leader is now saying that if Syria makes peace with Israel, Lebanon will too:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1071971.html

This makes peace with Syria potentially even more valuable, Israel may be able to get two birds with one stone.  Israel could have treaties with all nations that it shares a border:  Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon.  This would significantly boost peace prospects in the region.

La Repubblica, an Italian periodical, has a rare interview with Syrian President Bashar Assad.  He offers his take on relations with the U.S., Israel, Iran and events in recent history.  It's definitely worth a read:

http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=2448