Why Assad, why now?
Government officials say it is better to have Bashar Assad on Israel’s side than to continue current diplomatic stalemate and allow him to arm himself for possible war in future. ‘Assad may be a bastard, but it is entirely possible that it would be better to have him in our camp,’ one official says
“Assad may be a bastard, but it is entirely possible that it would be better to have him in our camp,” one official said in response to Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter’s statement that “In exchange for peace with Syria, Israel can leave the Golan Heights.”
“We should at least consider this option, and we are already hearing similar opinions from the US State Department,” the official said, adding that “We must also take into account what can happen in case a war with Syria breaks out – either we will get a slap in the face or we will respond with a stronger blow that will topple Assad. And then what will we have in the northern border? The Muslim Brotherhood at best, or an extreme model of Iraq or even Somalia at worst.”
Syria, for its part, is not oblivious to the statements emanating from Jerusalem: Arab media outlets Al-Jazeera and London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat featured Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s appointment of a project manager to map out the different issues between Syria and Israel as their top story.
However, Israeli government officials said Livni’s move was blown way out of proportion and the State Department said that in no way does the appointment point to Israel’s intentions regarding Syria.
Syrian parliament member Faisal Kulthum said in response to Livni’s appointment “After what happened during the sixth war waged by Israel against Lebanon – the rules of the game have changed.”
“Israel must understand that it cannot continue to forcefully conquer territories,” he said.
In Syria, they were glad to hear Dichter's comments. As a rule, since the enthusiastic speech of Syrian president Basher Assad last week, when he said that "Syria has another possibility other than peace – resistance," Syrian sensitivity became sharper to the Syrian-Israel axis, as seen by intensive monitoring of all diplomatic developments.
Assad's speech - war or peace?
Many in Israel were not impressed by Assad's speech, as it focused on war. The opposite is true. Assad declared that peace is a strategic choice for Syria, but at he same he said that if this does not materialize, there will from now on be another opportunity – "resistance" – a Hizbullah term.
Various sources said Israel did not internalize the content of Assad's speech and were galloping ahead with closed eyes to a terrible clash. "The window of opportunity against Assad will remain open for another two or three years," one source said. "In Israel there is a feeling that if there was calm for 32 years in the Golan, maybe there will be calm for another 32 years, and this is now how things are."
As if to prove the sources right, reports from recent days and Monday morning are hinting at another possibility – weapons, in large amounts, are making their way from Iran to Syria and from there they are supposed to be given to Hizbullah. The direction is clear – Iranian coverage for the possible war with a much higher intensity than what we have seen. "This can be a terrible war. A sea of missiles of different types will be directed at Israel," said the source. "We must consider this before galloping forward with closed eyes."
Therefore, the source said, it may be better to consider speaking with Assad and to take him away from the Iranian grasp, in which it is not at all clear that he wants to be part of, thereby dealing with one source – Iran, instead of a multi-dimensional force.
"It's certainly possible that if Assad feels the matter is serious – he would be willing to pay in hard currency in Lebanon. If he feels he is being buttered up – we won't see results. In any case, this is a matter that decision makers will have to decide," the source said.
