Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amos Gilboa
Objective
The objective of this paper is to analyze the major considerations in answer to the
basic question: Should Israel initiate negotiations with Syria on a political accord?
Another school of thought concurs that Israel may not ignore Bashar’s calls and
be seen as the one turning down Arab calls for peace, but contends that entering
into negotiations with Syria is neither urgent nor critical, and may even be harmful
for the following reasons:
• First, there is currently no critical mass of factors, international or regional,
pressuring or even encouraging Israel to embark on negotiations with Syria.
There is pressure to progress on the Palestinian track, pressure exerted
mainly by Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt – who feel threatened by Iran.
Embarking on negotiations with Syria is, therefore, out of context in regional
terms.
• Second, the basic Israeli interest is to promote the political stability of our
neighbors (Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon). Negotiating with Syria
at this point in time contradicts this interest, since Syria is occupied at
present with dissolving the system in Lebanon and we have no desire to help
Syria in so doing.
• Third, this would severely damage our relations with the US.
• Fourth, the so-called Iranian “bear hug” meets with full Syrian consent.
• And, politically speaking, public opinion in Israel does not rule out
negotiations with Syria, but concurrently and consistently over time (and as
in a recent survey of October 2006), the great majority of the public objects
to handing over any portion of the Golan Heights in return for a peace
accord with Syria.
2
• Therefore, Bashar is probably uninterested in and unable to deliver the
“strategic goods” Israel expects of him, and it is extremely doubtful
whether he is able to provide Israel with a comprehensive peace agreement
and open up significantly to the West (as did President Sadat). The
underlying reason for this is the closed autocratic structure of the Syrian
regime, based on the minority Alawi sect and those attached to it, which
may seal its own fate by making significant changes to its domestic,
economic, and foreign policy. They have no wish to “bring the flies into
the room,” as Hafez al-Asad once said.
• Bashar’s interest, which is less in an accord with Israel than in the process
itself that would officially lend credence to ending Syria’s pariah status,
would render him immune from various pressures, including pressure to
leave Lebanon alone, and would provide him with means to avoid the
international tribunal investigating Hariri’s murder.
Counterarguments by those in favor include:
• Bashar honestly wants peace with Israel, is ready for it, and is confident
after six years in power. He is not constrained as his father was (guilt over
losing the Golan Heights, the issue of succession during negotiations with
Barak). An accord with Syria is relatively easy to achieve. Most issues
have been agreed in the past “on paper” (such as normalization, security
arrangements) and the price is well known and has been mentioned by
three or more prime ministers: withdrawal from the entire Golan Heights,
almost to within an inch of the June 4, 1967 line.
• Syria may not be able to disengage from Iran quickly and
comprehensively, but its ties with Iran would be restricted; Hizbollah may
not be disarmed, but Syria could halt arms flow to the organization,
thereby weakening it and helping stabilize the political situation in
Lebanon. Overall, the friction between Israel and Iran would be reduced,
and this is important in approaching the situation where Iran would
become a nuclear power.
• Syria would renounce terrorism. It would do so, among other reasons,
because its shaky economy requires assistance and investments from the
West.
Implications of initiating negotiations for the Palestinian issue and for Iraq
As for the Palestinians: on the one hand there are those of the opinion that Abu
Mazen’s faction is actually interested in Israeli-Syrian negotiations, which would help
in energizing the Palestinian track to reach an accord; on the other hand, one may
assume that Hamas and extremist Palestinian organizations would perceive this as
evidence that Israel gives in to Bashar, and is willing to give him that which it had not
been willing to give prior to the second Lebanon War – hence the Syrian method of
terrorism has been successful. Therefore we may see an extensive renewal of
terrorism, including by the global jihad, massively aided by Iran.
In any case, it is hard to envision the Israeli government (against a backdrop of
public argument and unrest) concurrently tackling two tracks and reaching accords
that entail a costly price.
Iraq. The Syrians have no real influence on what is happening inside Iraq and
on shaping its future. The issue of the Syria-Iraq border is outside the scope of Israeli-
Syrian negotiations. The key question, which is hard to answer at this stage, is how
3
would Syria be affected by the new situation in Iraq after the Americans leave? Would
that bolster a possible Israel-Syria accord, or would it cause its failure?
4
bring the remains of Eli Cohen. Bashar’s reaction would be, most likely, a rejection
and a statement that he would meet the prime minister only when the accord is to be
signed. Other tactics abound in this domain. Furthermore, it is possible to propose to
the Syrians, via the UN force in the Golan Heights, reciprocal moves to reduce
tensions and avoid miscalculation. For example, we would notify them of major
military drills in the Golan Heights, and would expect them to respond in kind.
Second, a policy of deterrence versus Syria should be formulated, including in
case of “minor” Syrian moves, such as terrorist activity from the Golan Heights. Any
terrorism in the Golan Heights would seriously impact on tourism and development in
the Golan Heights. The motto should be (accompanied, of course, by military
readiness and priority assigned to intelligence: any minor act of violence originating
from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights would mean a declaration of war on Israel.
At the higher level, Israel should embark on a strategic dialogue with the US
on containing the Syrian-Iranian threat (the starting position is that Syria would not
turn to meaningful aggressive moves unless its working assumption is that it has
Iranian backup). The stance towards the Americans might be: currently you tell us not
to “talk” to Syria (unless you have any other ideas?!) But Bashar is threatening war.
Therefore, let us formulate a regional policy of containment and deterrence, possibly
with other partners.
Third, in any case we should formulate right now (as “plan B”) our position
on a possible future accord between Israel and the Syrians. Its starting position (unlike
in the 1990s) is that any accord must consist of two layers: the direct bilateral layer
between us and Syria (the peace layer), and the regional, strategic layer, which should
serve the strategic objective of confronting Iran’s rising power. At the strategic layer,
the framework for handling it is outside of Israel’s hands. The US manages the
framework, and we should conduct a dialogue with the US on this issue.
Fourth, as for the direct bilateral relations between us and Syria, the starting
position must be fundamentally different from the one adopted as a result of the
"Rabin pledge" of 1993, reflecting a new attitude incorporating all the significant
changes that have occurred in the region. Its major points:
• Israel does not have sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Syria does.
• However, the era of “Israel knows the price it has to pay” is over. There is no
more “pledge” and no more “the June 4 border.” The price is not known! It
will be a result of a compromise and the price Syria is willing to pay.
• The model for peace is Jordan.
• Very long time frames (far beyond a few years) for realizing the accord, due to
the long time required to implement changes at the strategic layer. In this
context, turn the lease idea into an Israeli position.
• Review and refine all the ideas on turning the Golan Heights into a global hi-
tech park; a global winery center; creation of international ski resorts (à la “the
three Hermons” – Israeli, Syrian, and Lebanese), and other similar ideas.