Israeli-Syrian Peace Plan

[Jewscout]

imo it's all sound and fury signifying nothing, as these types of talks have been in the recent past.

the fact that Olmert is totally unpopular will, alone, doom any kind of peace talks.

[varian]

To be honest, in the region, the only thing that Israel (and all Jews in general) could give up in order to achieve lasting peace is their very existence. If one is goaded into giving up what was previously unthinkable, then any enemy could argue that all the time, material, and manpower expended to keep those formerly "prized posessions" in the past were really just exercises in futility. (e.g. Jerusalem never really meant anything to the Jews except to deprive the Muslim elements access to "their" holy places). This can quickly become a slippery slope which would not benefit any Israeli negotiation. This could give credence to an enemy's claims that Jews never had any business in the region anyway. Just my 2 cents.

[dayag]

imo it's all sound and fury signifying nothing, as these types of talks have been in the recent past.

the fact that Olmert is totally unpopular will, alone, doom any kind of peace talks.

Yeah, Olmert is a lame duck. The Syrians won't even agree to direct talks. How serious can they be?

Personally I value the Golan watershed and strategic heights more than peace with Syria. And I really don't want to give up Gamla anymore than I'd give up Masada.

[pagan]

Do not give an inch of Israeli territory to any Muslim country. They will use it as launching pads for rockets on Jewish heads.

[takeo]

Israel would rather see the Alawites remain in control of Syria with the assumption that anything else would be worse.

From Stratfor:

From news article:

Talk of a Syrian-Israeli Peace Agreement

There also is the ongoing discussion of a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement. Turkey is brokering these talks, driven by a desire to see a stable Syria along its border and to become a major power broker in the region. The Turks are slowly increasing their power and influence under the expectation that in due course, as the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, a power vacuum will exist that Turkey will have to — and want to — fill. Turkish involvement in Syria represents a first step in exercising diplomatic influence to Turkey’s south.

Syria has an interest in a settlement with Israel. The al Assad government is composed of an ethnic minority — the Alawites, a heterodox offshoot of Shiite Islam. It is a secular government with ideological roots much closer to Fatah than to Hamas (both religious and Sunni) or Hezbollah (Shiite but religious). It presides over a majority Sunni country, and it has brutally suppressed Sunni religiosity before. At a time when the Saudis, who do not like Syria, are flush with cash and moving with confidence, the al Assad regime has increased concerns about Sunni dissatisfaction. Moreover, its interests are not in Israel, but in Lebanon, where the region’s commercial wealth is concentrated.

Syria dabbles in all the muddy waters of the region. It has sent weapons to Sunni jihadists. Hamas’ exiled central leadership is in Damascus. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria thus rides multiple and incompatible horses in an endless balancing act designed to preserve the al Assad government. The al Assads have been skillful politicians, but in the end, their efforts have been all tactics and no strategy. The Turks, who do not want to see chaos on their southern border, are urging the Syrians to a strategic decision, or more precisely to the status quo ante 2006.

The United States has never trusted the al Assads, but the situation became particularly venomous after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the Syrians, for complex political reasons, decided to allow Sunni fundamentalists to transit through Syria into Iraq. The Syrian motive was to inoculate itself against Sunni fundamentalism — which opposed Damascus — by making itself useful to the Sunni fundamentalists. The United States countered the Syrian move by generating pressure that forced the Syrian army out of Lebanon.

The Israelis and Syrians have had a working understanding on Lebanon ever since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Under this understanding, the Syrians would be the dominant force in Lebanon, extracting maximum economic advantage while creating a framework for stability. In return, Syria would restrain Hezbollah both from attacks on Israel and from attacks on Syrian allies in Lebanon — which include many groups opposed to Hezbollah.

The Syrian withdrawal was not greeted with joy in Israel. First, the Israelis liked the arrangement, as it secured their frontier with Lebanon. Second, the Israelis did not want anything to happen to the al Assad regime. Anything that would replace the al Assads would, in the Israeli mind, be much worse. Israel, along with the al Assads, did not want regime change in Damascus and did not want chaos in Lebanon, but did want Hezbollah to be controlled by someone other than Israel. And this was a point of tension between Israel and the United States, which was prepared to punish the al Assads for their interference in Iraq — even if the successor Syrian regime would be composed of the Sunni fundamentalists the Syrians had aided.
The Turkish argument is basically that the arrangement between Syria and Lebanon prior to 2006 was in the best interests of Israel and Syria, but that its weakness was that it was informal. Unlike the Israeli-Egyptian or Israeli-Jordanian agreements, which have been stable realities in the region, the Israeli-Syrian relationship was a wink and a nod that could not stand up under U.S. pressure. Turkey has therefore been working to restore the pre-2006 reality, this time formally.

Two entities clearly oppose this settlement. One is the United States. Another is Hezbollah.

The United States sees Syria as a destabilizing factor in the region, regardless of Syria’s history in Lebanon. In addition, as Saudi oil revenues rise and U.S. relations with Sunnis in Iraq improve, the Americans must listen very carefully to the Saudis. As we pointed out, the Saudis view Syria — a view forged during the 1970s — as an enemy. The Saudis also consider the Alawite domination of Syrian Sunnis as unacceptable in the long run. Saudi Arabia is also extremely worried about the long-term power of Hezbollah (and Iran) and does not trust the Syrians to control the Shiite group. More precisely, the Saudis believe the Syrians will constrain Hezbollah against Israel, but not necessarily against Saudi and other Sunni interests. The United States is caught between Israeli interest in a formal deal and Saudi hostility. With its own sympathies running against Syria , the U.S. tendency is to want to gently sink the deal.

In this, U.S. interests ironically are aligned with Hezbollah and, to some extent, Iran. Hezbollah grew prosperous under Syrian domination, but it did not increase its political power. The Syrians kept the Shiite group in a box to be opened in the event of war. Hezbollah does not want to go into that box again. It is enjoying its freedom of action to pursue its own interests independent of Syria. It is in Hezbollah’s interests to break the deal. Lacking many allies, the Iranians need the Syrians, as different as the Syrians are ideologically. Iran is walking a tightrope between Syria and Hezbollah on this. But Tehran, too, would like to sink the talks.

I think this is an interesting analysis.
The Alawite regime is better than the religious sunni alternative. It's just incredible that the US still support the Saudi regime, who've generated Sunni wahabist extremism whereever they had influence and built mosques, over secular regimes. A peace deal between Israel and Syria would have farreaching consequences. Syria would stop funding Hesbollah and expulse the Hamas leadership, and the alliance between Iran and Syria would be under pressure. Without Syria, Iran's grip on the Middle East would seriously weaken.
If it's accompanied by a deal between Israel and Abbas, it would totally change the situation in the Middle East. In that case Hamas will only be supported by Saudi Arabia, while Abbas would become an ally of Syria. It could potentially lead to high tensions between Israel and the US, since Saudi Arabia is an American ally. It would bring Israel a whole lot closer to Russia, which share extensive cultural ties, since Syria is the main ally of Russia in the region, and both have a common interest in keeping sunnite extremism at bay. Turkey would also be a part of this alliance. The last decade Turkey, Syria and Russia have become allies. This common interest is also shared by Iran and the shia government in Iraq, and by Hezbollah, which means that relations between Iran and Syria would not break down, despite Syria's recognition of Israel. Of course any deal with Israel will involve Hezbollah, since Hezbollah is mainly a Damascus proxy. I think Hezbollah will remain a force to reckon with in Lebanon but would cease all attacks against Israel.

This new alliance would have interesting consequences for Jordan and Egypt. These regimes are mainly US-proxies and side with Saudi interests. Yet the growing pressure of sunnite islamism, supported by Saudi Arabia, means that these regimes sooner or later are going to collide with Saudi Arabia and change their allegences. The US on the contrary will probably choose for the Saudi oil, which will damage relations with Israel.
On the whole I think it's a good scenario. Israel should become an independant power in the Middle East, establish good relations with its neighbours independant of the US. US and Saudi influence over the region would be seriously limited.
The deal would also completely change Israel's relations with Europe. Once the occupation finished, there's no restraint anymore to establish close relations with Europe, and even Israel's admission to the European Union is a real possibility, that would be supported by the large majority in Israel and have farreaching consequences for the Israeli economy. It would truly end dependence on the US.
It'll change the whole situation, and I understand that Americans are not too happy about it and will try to undermine it. Peace is not necessarily in their advantage. That's why I think Americans, especially the republicans which are very close to Saudi interests, will covertly support the anti-peace opposition in Israel.

[takeo]

don't warry. Nothing is going to happen until there is going to be a regime change in Syria.

negociations are going right at this moment...

Do you prefere an islamist government in Damascus?

[takeo]

punished by god for his crimes

Finally it appeared to me that you people are Great-Israel extremists who do not in any possible way represent Israeli interests or the majority in Israel.
I hope Israel reaches an agreement with its neighbours, you don't, since you are men of eternal war and eternal oppression. You are the same like Yigal Amir, who is most likely your personal hero.

[takeo]

imo it's all sound and fury signifying nothing, as these types of talks have been in the recent past.

the fact that Olmert is totally unpopular will, alone, doom any kind of peace talks.

That is a concern, yes. But still Kadima and Labor have a majority in parliament, they have the power to do it, and a peace agreement would likely make him, or his successor, a hero like Begin or Rabin. Ultra-right colonisers, Great Israel fanatics, etc. will hate him and try to kill him, but these are a minority anyway in Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Strategically neither Syria nor Israel have much need to reach reapproachment with one another. It would be a nice side issue but it's not strategically crucial. Syria does not present an existential threat to Israel. The worst they can do it what they have done and what Syria and Arab states generally are quite good at: Murdering unarmed women and children in Northern Israel. To this end they're a foil to Hezbollah. But Hezbollah would rather see Lebanon attacked when they hurl rockets at Israel than they would see Syria attacked. So while Syria may make noises, in truth it matters very little. German and French banks do not have infinite ability to extend credit for them to buy Russian weapons from the Iranians and from the Russians directly. Nor can they afford interrupt the rape of Lebanon which is the Syrian army's prime objective: to siphon off as much money from Lebanon as possible, while keeping the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran to Hezbollah operating.

[takeo]

Strategically neither Syria nor Israel have much need to reach reapproachment with one another. It would be a nice side issue but it's not strategically crucial. Syria does not present an existential threat to Israel. The worst they can do it what they have done and what Syria and Arab states generally are quite good at: Murdering unarmed women and children in Northern Israel. To this end they're a foil to Hezbollah. But Hezbollah would rather see Lebanon attacked when they hurl rockets at Israel than they would see Syria attacked. So while Syria may make noises, in truth it matters very little. German and French banks do not have infinite ability to extend credit for them to buy Russian weapons from the Iranians and from the Russians directly. Nor can they afford interrupt the rape of Lebanon which is the Syrian army's prime objective: to siphon off as much money from Lebanon as possible, while keeping the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran to Hezbollah operating.

I think it's crucial, not because Syria is a serious threat to Israel, it isn't, but because it would weaken Iranian influence over the region, and because it would end isolation. It would mean all neighbouring countries except Lebanon recognise Israel, and as I wrote it would change regional balances in the advantage of Israel. Syria's support for Abbas and Iranian decreased influence would also mean that Hamas would be weakened, which will make it a lot easier to deal with the palestinians. Israel can use new friends in a region where they have more ennemies than friends.

[Mediocrates]

New friends is not a goal. It's not even plausible. The Syrians can't afford, internally to suddenly stop demanding the extinction of Israel. It's part of what keeps them in control of their own country. You can't have the populace suddenly looking over the hill and discovering that Jews don't have two heads and eat babies. Then the Syrians would rise up and demand to be treated like people too.

It's like your other favorite paradise state, North Korea. You do know that the North Koreans who manage to escape are often shocked to discover that the South Koreans aren't WORSE off than they were, as they have been told their whole lives. So no, Syria can afford a cold peace and spin it as a glorious Arab victory over the Jew invader. But they can't afford real interaction let alone the truth. The truth would be catastrophic to them.

[takeo]

Mediocrates

New friends is not a goal. It's not even plausible. The Syrians can't afford, internally to suddenly stop demanding the extinction of Israel. It's part of what keeps them in control of their own country. You can't have the populace suddenly looking over the hill and discovering that Jews don't have two heads and eat babies. Then the Syrians would rise up and demand to be treated like people too.

You don't know anything about Syria, or the Arab world at large. Syrians know very well what's at stake, and they know what's going on in the world. Druzes live in the Golan heights, still most continue to be loyal to Syria. If Israel returns the Golan heights and makes peace with the palestinians, peace will be welcomed by most Syrians. Syria will change once peace is signed, like Egypt and Jordan did. Even Khadafi today became an ally of the West, Arab regimes change easily if that's in their interest.
By the way Syrians are threated like people, it's not such a bad regime, at least compared with Egypt, Iraq or Saudi-Arabia. Most opposition against the regime comes from people who want to establish an islamic state.

It's like your other favorite paradise state, North Korea.

it is not

You do know that the North Koreans who manage to escape are often shocked to discover that the South Koreans aren't WORSE off than they were, as they have been told their whole lives.

North Korea is unique. Syria is very different, as I told you many Syrians know what's going on in the world, most regularly visit Lebanon and Turkey and many have satellite dishes. Syria is also not a really poor country, at least compared to Egypt for example.

So no, Syria can afford a cold peace and spin it as a glorious Arab victory over the Jew invader. But they can't afford real interaction let alone the truth. The truth would be catastrophic to them.

The truth is especially catastrophic for the Bush-administration which you support. And I think Syrians know more about the world than the average Fox-watching American.

[Rob]

You don't know anything about Syria, or the Arab world at large.

I travel around in the Arab world and have quite a good grasp what is going on. By far, most Arabs are anti-semites and want the destruction of Israel.

peace will be welcomed by most Syrians.

Is this your conclusion after knowing what Syrians think? Syrians see Israel as their eternal enemy.

Syria will change once peace is signed, like Egypt and Jordan did.

Of the Arabs countries, Egyptians hate Israel the most. Ask any Egyptian, Egyptians and their families are prosecuted for life if they visit Israel. Most Jordanians still see Israel as the main enemy. Again, go to Jordan and ask...

By the way Syrians are threated like people, it's not such a bad regime

You can´t be serious!

[takeo]

Rob

I travel around in the Arab world and have quite a good grasp what is going on. By far, most Arabs are anti-semites and want the destruction of Israel.

If you go to Nuweiba or Taba you'll see plenty of Israeli tourists and they're wellcomed by the locals. I think Arabs are very able to make a difference between US- and Israeli policy, which they truly hate, and Jews or Americans in general. I always told I was Jewish and never got a problem, except that people began ranting about the US or Israel, as they think all Jews support these governments.

Is this your conclusion after knowing what Syrians think? Syrians see Israel as their eternal enemy.

As an Israeli you can't usually travel to Syria I think, except if you get a special permission. In 1999 I went to Syria first and than via Jordan to Israel, the other way round would be impossible.

Of the Arabs countries, Egyptians hate Israel the most. Ask any Egyptian, Egyptians and their families are prosecuted for life if they visit Israel. Most Jordanians still see Israel as the main enemy. Again, go to Jordan and ask...

I crossed the border between Taba and Eilat, apart from tourists and Israeli I also saw some Arabs crossing the border and trading with Israel.
It's true Egyptians are very upset about israel, the US and their own government, which they think is supported by the US. If Egypt was a democracy, Mubarak would have been voted out of office long ago. Egypt is a very poor, religious and backwards society, much worse than Syria I can assure you.
But at the same time they are a kind people, like Syrians, and most of them are not hating every individual Jew, except some fundamentalists.

You can´t be serious!

it's not a good regime, equally corrupted, but much better than Egypt's. Living standards are obviously better than in Egypt (comparable to Jordan) and both the people and the regime are much more secular.You see relatively few scarves. (as was the case in Iraq in 1999 by the way, so you see, a regime-change is a big risk and can completely change the country)

[Rob]

If you go to Nuweiba or Taba you'll see plenty of Israeli tourists and they're wellcomed by the locals.

Sinai is an exception yes (because of the money). The rest of Egypt hates Israeli´s (more than any other Arab country), despite the peace. You said Syria will change because of a future peace like Egypt...

As an Israeli you can't usually travel to Syria I think, except if you get a special permission. In 1999 I went to Syria first and than via Jordan to Israel, the other way round would be impossible.

You mean one cannot travel from Israel to Syria via Jordan? You sure can...and you can also meet a lot of Syrians during travels in other Arab countries.

I crossed the border between Taba and Eilat, apart from tourists and Israeli I also saw some Arabs crossing the border and trading with Israel.

Like I said, ask Egyptians what will happen if they visit Israel. The Egyptian government will not only target them, but the rest of the family.