Throwing Bashar a lifeline

via memeorandum

Israel Matzav noted that PM Olmert has apparently gone even beyond Ehud Barak’s generous concessions to Syria and promised Bashar Assad the complete Golan even up to the Kinneret.

But my question is why now? Why would Olmert extend a lifeline to Assad at this point?

It’s just been revealed the Syrians were re-arming Hezbollah. The United States is just revealing more evidence that the site Israel hit in Syria was a nuclear reactor. In other words it’s time to be pressuring Syria not giving into its demands.

Of course this wouldn’t be the first time that Israel has strengthened an enemy at a critical time. In 1993 Israel rescued Arafat from political oblivion with Oslo. In 2000 Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon allowing Hezbollah to bolster its power and leading to the 2006 war. In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza after killing the leaders of Hamas, giving Hamas a platform to regroup and intensify its war against Israel.

Past experience says this isn’t the time to concede anything to Syria.

Yesterday the NYT reported that Israel and Syria hint at progress on Golan deal:

Peace overtures between Israel and Syria moved up a gear on Wednesday when a Syrian cabinet minister said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel had sent a message to President Bashar al-Assad to the effect that Israel would be willing to withdraw from all the Golan Heights in return for peace with Syria.The Syrian expatriate affairs minister, Buthaina Shaaban, told Al Jazeera television, “Olmert is ready for peace with Syria on the grounds of international conditions; on the grounds of the return of the Golan Heights in full to Syria.” She said that Turkey had conveyed the message.

Israeli officials did not deny the statement from Damascus but would not confirm it either, offering a more general, positive reaction. “Israel wants peace with Syria; we are interested in a negotiated process,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Olmert. “The Syrians know well our expectations, and we know well their expectations.”

The Washington Post today gives some background of past efforts:

Syria and Israel last held direct peace talks in 2000. The negotiations, mediated by President Clinton in the waning days of his administration, foundered over how much authority Syria would have over the coast along the Sea of Galilee.

It’s also worth pointing out that Assad insisted that Israel agree to his terms of withdrawal before negotiating with Israel. This is the reason Assad didn’t make peace with Israel.

Elliott Jager notes that Assad the younger isn’t likely to be welcoming Israel with open arms even if he gets all he (and his father) demand up front:

WHATEVER HIS motivations, Israel should judge Assad by what he says and what he does. Assad insists that even under a peace treaty normalization is out of the question. This is how he put it at a conference in Damascus last week: “Restoration of land and rights may lead to relations based on routine, but not [necessarily] normalization. What happened in Jordan and Egypt is proof to us that the public does not want normalization, and therefore nobody can impose it on anybody else. I know that the Syrian people reject normalization and therefore I will not impose it on them.”

Still that doesn’t stop Ha’aretz from enthusiastically supporting the surrender of the Golan in Don’t be afraid of Peace with Syria. (I won’t call it peace, because I don’t believe that the withdrawal from the Golan will bring peace.)

There seems to be a need to repeat, over and over, this basic fact: Nothing contributes to Israel’s security more than a peace accord. Before the protests of solidarity with the Golan Heights begin, it should be emphasized that withdrawal from the Golan in exchange for peace is endorsed not only by bleeding hearts, but by distinctly security-minded figures. The supporters of the Golan are West Bank settlers, like Golan resident Effi Eitam, who see any withdrawal as a national catastrophe; parties that gain strength by sowing security-related fears, such as Israel Beiteinu; those with economic interests in the region, hikers, bird-watchers, wine connoisseurs and winemakers; and mainly the people of the past, who still consider the lookout point on Mount Hermon to be “Israel’s eyes,” even though those eyes did not prove a very effective source of warning in 1973. Today, neither advance warning nor deterrence rely on the “Alpinists” (the elite IDF unit trained for snow operations), and the missile war expected in the future is not affected by natural boundaries, whether of the flowing or the ascending kind.

Of course it could be argued that Israel hasn’t come to a hot war with Syria since 1967 while it held the Golan. Also, why need peace come only on Syria’s terms? Why can’t Israel obtain peace for half the Golan? Surely if Assad would agree to a compromise that would be a better indication of peace than if Israel meets his unconditional demands, wouldn’t it?
Here’s Jager again:

It is in Israel’s long-term interest to have a peace treaty with Syria, but not at any price. Israel would have to make irrevocable strategic concessions. So it’s hard to imagine many Israelis having the confidence to support a deal that does not signify a true opening of genuine peaceful relations.

That’s the subtlety Ha’aretz and like minded folks miss. Syria views talking peace only in terms of what it will receive. So Assad and his lackeys can say “peace,” but don’t mean peace in any meaningful sense of the word. They want territory, and they’ll deign to accept that territory from Israel.

By insisting that ceding territory is the same thing as achieving peace, Ha’aretz accepts Syria’s “peace” talk at face value. It is a view that unhelpfully echoes through the diplomatic world. But it puts Israel at a disadvantage. Israel then in the name of “peace” is required to cede real assets in return for nebulous future considerations. It requires an element of trust that Bashar Assad, in his recent activities, has contradicted.

If people want peace, there needs to be a demonstrated change of heart from Damascus. Ceding the Golan Heights by itself won’t bring peace, unless one defines peace simply as the acceptance of land by a hostile country.

Meryl offers her thoughts.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.