When reading about the Israeli-Syrian negotiations it’s easy to dismiss them on account of Olmert’s legal trouble or because it isn’t even clear that Israel stands to gain anything from ceding the Golan to Syria. It’s also reasonably clear that Syria’s positions cannot be reconciled with Israel’s.
Even the past has shown that every once in a while (even with Assad Sr.) news would leak out about a “Syrian track” and then fade to nothing.
Asad’s goal, then, is not peace but a peace process. He participates in negotiations without intending that they reach fruition. Engaging in apparently serious talks wins him improved relations with the West without having to open up his country. He can wink at us while maintaining his ties to Iran and hosting a wide range of terrorist groups. He offers the occasional flourish (such as his call last week to Mr. Clinton as the latter was eating lunch with Shimon Peres) but does not change the substance.
Of course today, the negotiation, unlike what Pipes is describing seem to be intended for Israel, not the United States. Or perhaps to drive a wedge between the two countries.
So despite the record and Olmert’s political weakness, which convince some that nothing will come of these talks, Ethan Bronner of the NYT, thinks that there might be more going on.
A senior government official, who said he could not speak for attribution on such a politically delicate topic, agreed in part. He said that what Mr. Olmert was doing with the Palestinians “is much less than meets the eye.†Nonetheless, he, like others, contended that the new Syrian talks could prove significant.“This seems bigger than any one individual,†he said. “Olmert is, in a way, committing his successors who, by the way, may be coming in soon. I don’t think he will be the one to complete this. His motives may be suspicious. But something has happened here that will probably go beyond this prime minister.â€
The idea that a lame duck could obligate his successor in a deal that he’s making in secret is one that’s very frightening.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Yes, but I think it’s only frightening if you believe in the New York Times/Foggy Bottom view of things.
When 80% of the Israeli public doesn’t want to cede the Golan, it doesn’t matter what the New York Times writes. I think, frankly, it’s just wishful thinking on their behalf, and their source’s.
While 80% of Israelis do not want to cede the Golan, parts of Jerusalem, and want to retaliate against Hamas in Gaza, Olmert’s coalition presently has the representation in the Knesset to give these away for bupkes. Moreover, they are proceeding to do so.
chsw
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 05/23/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.