Syria's Assad – how serious is he?
Photo: AP
The easier choice: Syria
Israeli-Syrian peace easier objective for US, but is it the right move?
So who's at fault? There are those who argue that the severe stomachache that struck Bill Clinton on March 26, 2000 was to blame. The US president arrived in Geneva for a meeting with Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, yet he became sick, and officials in Israel later attributed the failure of the entire summit to this.
One way or another, almost nine years later, Clinton's wife announced the resumption of the Syrian track. This time, in light of past lessons, she refrained from declaring that this is the main track. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, American foreign policy swayed between the Palestinian and Syrian channels (until the arrival of George W. Bush, who viewed Syria as part of the problem, rather than the solution.) Israel did the same, at times taking the lead and other times being dragged by the US.
Israeli officials also argue that Clinton's aides did not prepare him adequately for the meeting. Some of Clinton's aides accepted some responsibility, yet also noted that Prime Minister Barak got cold feet and did not agree to a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights. The Syrians, as the Syrians tend to do, blamed Israel for everything.
Syrian Track
Associated Press
US senator tells think-tank Assad told him Damascus willing to embrace Arab peace initiative from 2000, looking past Iran to improved relations with Arab countries and West, but adds: We should have no illusion that Syria will immediately end its ties to Iran
Syria will only sign an agreement if it also receives far-reaching economic assistance from the US. The bitter dispute within Israel's intelligence community has to do with whether Assad indeed intends to fulfill the clauses of the deal, including the severance of ties with Tehran and banishment of terror headquarters, or whether he merely seeks to secure the perks and mitigate the Six-Day War's disgrace.
In recent months, academicians and senior former US diplomats, most of them closely connected to the Obama Administration, held a series of secret meetings with President Assad. Some of what was said in those meetings reached Israeli decision-makers, either directly or indirectly.
The meetings showed that Assad, at least in terms of what he says, is interested in peace with Tel Aviv via the Washington channel. The conclusions of these meetings, and mostly the identity of the participants and their close connections to the US Administration, stood at the base of Clinton's surprising declaration two days ago.
Syria not main problem
For the US, this is a peace deal that is much easier to secure. It presents two clear sides, which control their respective countries, while presenting clear demands: The Syrian side offers full peace for full withdrawal, while Israel wants to see security arrangements and guarantees.On the Palestinian front, there is a need to engage in negotiations both with the Fatah government in the West Bank and with the Hamas government in Gaza, which in any case is unwilling to end the conflict – at most it is willing to agree to a ceasefire. Meanwhile, the Syrian regime, as opposed to the Palestinians, has a record of strictly adhering to deals and written pledges.
Despite all this, the Mideastern powder keg, and perhaps that of the whole world, is not in Damascus. The holy Islamic sites controlled by Israel are in Jerusalem, not in Syria. Al-Qaeda uses the Palestinian-israeli conflict, rather than the Golan Heights' occupation, for propaganda means, and the same is true for Iran.
For the US, it will be much easier to exert massive pressure on Israel and on Syria in order to finalize a deal. On the other hand, it will leave Hillary Clinton with a major fire that still needs to be put out.
Ronen Bergman, a correspondent for Israel’s largest daily Yedioth Ahronoth, is the author of the “The Secret War With Iran”
