Syria and Israel negotiations

This is just a small part of an article by Gabriel Kolko. He is an old US radical who must be getting on in age by now. The rest of the article is at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kolko.php?articleid=10505The only security Israel can have will be a result of its signing peace accords with the Palestinians and the neighboring countries. It is no more likely than the U. S. to defeat its enemies on the field of battle, and its arms have been neutralized. The war in Lebanon was only an augury of the decisive limits of its military power. It is in this context that secret Israeli talks with Syria have enormous significance. They began in January 2004 in Turkey with the approval of Sharon, moving on to Switzerland, where the Swiss Foreign Office played the role of intermediary. By August 2005 they had reached a very advanced form and covered territorial, water, border, and political questions. Details remained to be ironed out, but they were a quantum leap in solving one of the region's crucial problems. When the Baker-Hamilton Study Group filed its recommendations last December, negotiations with Syria were especially stressed – a point he reiterated when he testified to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations last Jan. 30. Baker undoubtedly knew about the secret talks and Syria's explicit statements it wished to break with radical Islamic movements and was ready to discuss its ties with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

These nominally secret talks were made public on Jan. 8, 2007, when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak accused the United States in an interview with an Israeli paper of obstructing peace between Israel and Syria.

Ha'aretz's Akiva Eldar then published a series of extremely detailed accounts, including the draft accord, confirming that Syria offered a far-reaching and equitable peace treaty that would provide for Israel's security and is comprehensive – and which would divorce Syria from Iran and even create a crucial distance between it and Hezbollah and Hamas. The Bush administration's role in scuttling any peace accord was decisive. C. David Welch, assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, sat in at the final meeting, and two former senior CIA officials were present in all of these meetings and sent regular reports to Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The press has been full of details on how the American role was decisive, because it has war, not peace, at the top of its agenda.

Most of the Israeli establishment favors it. On Jan. 28, important Israelis met publicly in Jaffa and called the Israeli response "an irresponsible gamble with the State of Israel" since it made Cheney arbiter of Israeli national interests. They included former IDF chief of staff Amnon Lipkin Shahak, former Shin Bet chief Ya'akov Perry, former directors of the Foreign Ministry David Kimche and Alon Liel (who negotiated the deal and believes it is very serious), and the like. Shlomo Ben-Ami, former foreign minister, has since supported their position and argued that it is "too important" for Israel to endorse yet "another failure in the U.S. strategy."

But Olmert has explicitly said that the Bush administration opposes a negotiated peace with Syria. Therefore, he is opposed to it also. Olmert's contradiction is that he wants to remain closely allied to the U.S., whatever its policies, yet he is now one of the most unpopular prime ministers in Israel's history and in power only because of Sharon's stroke. Israel is a crucial pillar of American policy in the entire region, but this policy is failing. An alliance with America is Olmert's recipe for political defeat when the inevitable election is called. That is his problem.