By Mel Frykberg
RAMALLAH, Mar 16 (IPS) – As reconciliation talks between the various Palestinian factions continue to falter, and peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems even more remote, the chance of Syria and Israel reaching an agreement remains a real possibility.
Several weeks ago Israel’s chief patron, the U.S., sent two top envoys to Damascus to discuss strengthening ties, in a significant sign that relations between the two countries could be thawing.
The U.S. withdrew its ambassador to Syria in 2005 following the assassination of former pro-U.S. Lebanese president Rafiq Hariri. Syria was said to be behind the murder – a charge it denies.
Now indirect peace negotiations between Syria and Israel under the mediation of Turkey have been taking place on a regular basis following Israel’s 2006 Lebanese war. Syria suspended talks several months ago in protest against Israel’s bloody military offensive on Gaza.
However, hitherto the U.S. actively discouraged Israel from negotiating with the Syrians. Former U.S. president George Bush said Syria was too close to what he described as the “Axis of Evil” which included Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
There has long been a political divide between the two chief protagonists in the Middle East and their support of regional proxies as they sought to enforce a policy of divide and conquer in pursuit of their geopolitical interests.
The U.S. and Iran have not only been involved in a war of words but have been fuelling tensions in the area by supplying their regional clients military and political aid.
The U.S. has repeatedly expressed concern about the strengthening Shia crescent headed by a regionally ambitious Iran.
Iran is Syria’s main political ally. Furthermore, both countries finance, arm, train and give political succour to a number of local resistance groups including Lebanese Hizbullah and Palestinian Hamas.
Although Syria is a Sunni country, the leadership under President Bashar Assad is predominantly Allawite, a breakaway sect of Shia Islam. Hamas too is Sunni, but its militant ideology finds common ground with Iran’s theocracy.
The U.S. in turn has been the prominent backer of Israel with enormous financial and military support over the decades. But the U.S. has also provided military and financial support to Arab regimes in the region hostile to and afraid of Iran, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Countries.
However, the new administration in Washington, in accordance with U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy of détente, has been putting out feelers towards the Syrian leadership in a bid to try and resolve issues in a non- confrontational manner.
Assad welcomed Washington’s decision to send the two top Mideast envoys to Damascus to meet with Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem for discussion on improving ties between the two countries.
Syrian ambassador to the U.S., Imad Mustapha, commenting on Washington’s more conciliatory stance, told the media that, “they’ve given up on the idea that Syria has to do this and that.”
The U.S. needs Syria. Threats and bullying have not only failed to reconcile Israel and Syria but driven Syria further into the arms of Iran, thereby strengthening the Shia crescent.
Besides Syria wielding influence with Hamas and Hizbullah, any peace agreement between Israel and Syria would also put pressure on Lebanon to reach an agreement with Israel. This would free the Jewish state from being hemmed in by hostile neighbours.
The U.S. also needs Syria to prevent anti-U.S. Islamic militants from crossing its border into Iraq – something the U.S. has accused Syria of failing to do in the past.
Syria for its part wants U.S. sanctions against its Baathist regime removed. The sanctions have stifled bank transfers, technology imports and grounded some jets for lack of spare parts.
But Syria’s biggest priority is for Israel to return the Golan Heights, which were captured during the 1967 six-Day Arab-Israeli war, and it sees U.S. involvement as crucial for their return.
Israel regards their possession as strategically important and will only consider returning them on condition that Syria first ceases support of Hamas and Hizbullah.
There are also more than 15,000 Israeli settlers living and farming on the Golan and more than 70 percent of the Israeli public rejects a territorial compromise. Israel is also dependent on the Golan’s water resources.
However, the Israeli elite recognises the value of an accord with Syria which would not only weaken Iran’s regional influence but also deprive local resistance groups of their military and economic support.
A deal could also open the region to Israel economically, diplomatically and for tourism. Syria in turn would get the return of its territory, long-term regional stability, economic support and in turn a stable and prosperous domestic status-quo.
It would also join the regional Sunni club and gain new political prestige from like-minded neighbours if it chose to leave the Shia crescent. This is feasible as Syria is secular in nature and not a natural bed-fellow of Islamic fundamentalism.
Before this would happen, however, Syria would have to fundamentally realign its relationship with Iran. In order to do so it would have to be persuaded that its interests would be best served by making this choice.
This is where Turkey could once again step in as a mediator, which it has already offered to do.
Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has very good political, economic, and security relations with Iran but is not locked into a political or military alliance.
The fundamentals of the conflict between Israel and Syria have largely been resolved on paper during previous negotiations. But the finalisation and implementation of any deal, particularly Israel’s withdrawal from Syrian territory, could take years, and would probably have to be done in several stages. This is where the new U.S. support for rapprochement would come into play.
Ultimately any successful peace agreement between Israel and Syria would be dependent on full and impartial U.S. involvement. This would mean, amongst other things, leaning on Israel to make the necessary concessions. (END/2009)
Source: www.ipsnews.net, March 16, 2009
Leave a Reply