Will this Ehud make peace?

In order to understand what Bashar Assad is talking about when he refers to President Clinton's position that Israel missed an opportunity to sign a peace deal with Syria, one must go through hundreds of pages of a dense biography.

But then comes the paragraph where Clinton refers to a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. Meanwhile, he receives the news of Syrian President Hafez Assad's death.

Despite our disagreements, Clinton writes, Assad was always open and honest with me and I believed him when he said he took the strategic decision to make peace. Israeli-Syrian talks between former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and a Syrian representative led the US president to draw a clear conclusion: Now we know what it takes in order for Syria and Israel to make peace.

Barak was very close to a deal. He said he is ready and willing to withdraw from the Golan Heights and realize the pledge made by Rabin to Clinton, yet according to Clinton, at the last moment Barak got cold feet.

Clinton says that the gaps were not big to begin with, and that the Syrians came with a positive spirit, willingness to be flexible, and were eager to reach a deal. Barak, on the other hand, decided to linger a few days in order to convince the public he is a tough negotiator.

In his memoirs, Clinton admits he was disappointed. He says Assad trusted him and believed Barak's promises.

Personally, I have no doubt that Barak wanted and intended to reach a deal with Syria and with the Palestinians as well. The fact is that three months after the failed negotiations with Syria, he allowed Clinton to propose to Assad a draft that would have likely led to a deal had it been presented at the outset.

Bad advice

This is also what happened in talks with the Palestinians in Taba, about six months after the failed talks in Camp David. The same mistake: Too little, too late, too sour. Barak's problem was not a lack of desire or his personal abilities, which were and remain very impressive, but rather, his managerial, political, and diplomatic skills.

According to Clinton, Barak was relatively new to politics and received some particularly bad advice. Today it appears that Ehud Olmert, who is not at all new to polities, is also receiving some particularly bad advice in all matters related to Syria. His declaration that Israel will never renounce the Golan is reminiscent of Golda Meir's tragic declarations.

Clinton's conclusion regarding Barak is even truer for Olmert: Had Barak made genuine peace with Syria, his status in Israel and abroad would have been boosted and chances of succeeding in the Palestinian track as well would increase.

These words are still relevant today, and particularly in light of the 2002 Saudi initiative according to which all Arab countries will initiate normal ties and peace with Israel if only we withdraw from the Golan and occupied land in the West Bank.

The goal has remained the same, and so have the sides involved. What mostly changed is the leaders. Assad junior appears weaker than his father, yet it turns out his desire for peace and terms for a peace agreement are identical. Currently he is on a peace offensive, but he is being disparaged in Israel just like Sadat was when in 1972 he declared that his strategic choice is peace.

Sadat too said the price is known: The entire territory in exchange for peace. He also said that if Israel does not desire peace, a war will come, followed by peace. And that's exactly what happened. This week 33 years ago, Israel lost its best sons, almost 3,000 soldiers. Then came negotiations, and then we returned the entire Sinai in exchange for peace and a secure border with Egypt.

Ehud Barak ended up being "the man". We didn't withdraw from the Golan, but the peace process got stuck, and the threat of a terrible war still lingers. And today we're facing the same dilemma. Olmert is also seemingly "the man". He won't leave the Golan, or at least that is what he declares.

Yet Olmert still has the time to fix this. He's built for this. He may not be a genius like Barak, but he is capable of being a much better prime minister. His slyness and craftiness are not necessarily an obstacle. He's a manager, he's cunning, and he grasps and reacts quickly. His political instincts are sharp and polished. He is more a lawyer and less a general. Perhaps this is what we need today.

The prime minister needs a change of direction today, in terms of politics, leadership, diplomacy and strategy. An agreement with Syria would put him back at center stage and will turn him into a historical figure like Begin, Rabin, Sadat and Hussein.

He has what it takes. Without a change in direction he will be ousted, and rightfully so. The public has already displayed its strength in the Gaza withdrawal and the second Lebanon war.

If we need to go door-to-door and convince that for the sake of Zionism, the country, and security, we must return the entire Golan in order to get full peace, we can do it together with him.

Dr. Ron Pundak is the director general of the Peres Center for Peace