duck
12-08-2003, 10:04 AM
From Haaretz Daily:
The peace threat from Damascus
By Ze'ev Schiff
The most astounding thing about the Syrian
president's proposal to resume talks with Israel
is the response of official Israel. It may have
good reason to put question marks beside Bashar
Assad, but its reply also raises big questions. Is
Israel really interested in achieving peace with
its neighbor to the north?
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
has remained silent. Not a
word has been heard from him
on the offer of peace talks
raised by an extreme Arab
state. In the past, we always
hoped for such proposals.
Sharon has not even made a
non-committal comment - the
same way he behaved when
Saudi Arabia's proposal came for the first
time, before it had evolved into an initiative
of the Arab League.
Unidentified but known sources in Jerusalem have
begun to churn out excuses - like "Israel is
unable to conduct negotiations on two fronts at
once." One might think Israel is actually doing
this on one front. Instead of arguing that
Israel is now busy with contacts with the
Palestinians and finds it difficult to turn its
attention to the Syrian track, the sources
should have been accurate and said that Israel
is busy looking for ways to evade real
negotiations with the Palestinians.
Another excuse has been offered as a
pre-condition to Syria - it must first cease
its support for terror. Israel itself quite
rightly does not like pre-conditions imposed on
its own side. Israel saw even the Syrian
comment that negotiations should begin from
where they stopped during Hafez Assad's
lifetime as a pre-condition.
Israel, as noted, is suspicious of Bashar Assad,
suspecting that Damascus directly supports
terror and is equipping the Hezbollah. There is
the argument that the offices of Islamic Jihad
are not information offices as Assad avers, but
operational headquarters for planning terror
attacks on Israel.
However, it is known that Bashar Assad has said
things similar to what he told The New York
Times about talks with Israel at the military
academy in Damascus, where he said that his
father embarked on negotiations with Israel and
that this is a strategic decision.
Israel has already proven that when necessary it
knows how to respond to Syria's support for
terror - as it did in October when it attacked
a Palestinian training camp in Syria in
response to the terror attack at the Maxim
Restaurant in Haifa. Now Israel must prove that
it also knows how to respond to offers to
talk.
The only ray of light in Israel's response was
the statement by Foreign Minister Silvan
Shalom, but this was half a step. He did not
respond negatively to Assad's proposal, but he
did not really respond in the affirmative
either with an immediate invitation to talks,
as prime minister Menachem Begin did when
Egyptian president Anwar Sadat made his
proposal.
It seems the foreign minister was cautious
because he did not know how the prime minister
would react and also because he feared -
without cause - that the United States would
oppose a positive Israeli response to the
Syrian suggestion while it is in confrontation
with Syria over other issues, including its
support for terror.
In the opinion of American sources familiar with
the thinking in the administration, it would
have responded positively to an Israeli
acceptance of Assad's proposal. The United
States is not looking in principle for a
military confrontation with Damascus and is
ready to let Assad get onto a positive track.
Despite the suspicions, Israel should have
responded immediately and positively to Assad
and should have expressed a willingness to
renew negotiations. It should have picked up
the gauntlet tossed in its direction and said
there are various issues to be discussed -
including terror and the activities of
Hezbollah.
It should have coordinated the movement with
Washington, just as it does on the Palestinian
issue and above all, it should not avoid
engaging with the Syrians in parallel to what
is being done - or not being done - on the
Palestinian front.
The Palestinians have to know - as they were
told in the Saudi initiative - that they are
not the only player in the Middle Eastern game
with Israel. Israel ought to have a strategic
interest in an agreement with the Syrians. Even
if this is a Syrian maneuver, it is necessary
to respond to it and not to stand stuttering in
response to the proposal from President Assad.
The peace threat from Damascus
By Ze'ev Schiff
The most astounding thing about the Syrian
president's proposal to resume talks with Israel
is the response of official Israel. It may have
good reason to put question marks beside Bashar
Assad, but its reply also raises big questions. Is
Israel really interested in achieving peace with
its neighbor to the north?
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
has remained silent. Not a
word has been heard from him
on the offer of peace talks
raised by an extreme Arab
state. In the past, we always
hoped for such proposals.
Sharon has not even made a
non-committal comment - the
same way he behaved when
Saudi Arabia's proposal came for the first
time, before it had evolved into an initiative
of the Arab League.
Unidentified but known sources in Jerusalem have
begun to churn out excuses - like "Israel is
unable to conduct negotiations on two fronts at
once." One might think Israel is actually doing
this on one front. Instead of arguing that
Israel is now busy with contacts with the
Palestinians and finds it difficult to turn its
attention to the Syrian track, the sources
should have been accurate and said that Israel
is busy looking for ways to evade real
negotiations with the Palestinians.
Another excuse has been offered as a
pre-condition to Syria - it must first cease
its support for terror. Israel itself quite
rightly does not like pre-conditions imposed on
its own side. Israel saw even the Syrian
comment that negotiations should begin from
where they stopped during Hafez Assad's
lifetime as a pre-condition.
Israel, as noted, is suspicious of Bashar Assad,
suspecting that Damascus directly supports
terror and is equipping the Hezbollah. There is
the argument that the offices of Islamic Jihad
are not information offices as Assad avers, but
operational headquarters for planning terror
attacks on Israel.
However, it is known that Bashar Assad has said
things similar to what he told The New York
Times about talks with Israel at the military
academy in Damascus, where he said that his
father embarked on negotiations with Israel and
that this is a strategic decision.
Israel has already proven that when necessary it
knows how to respond to Syria's support for
terror - as it did in October when it attacked
a Palestinian training camp in Syria in
response to the terror attack at the Maxim
Restaurant in Haifa. Now Israel must prove that
it also knows how to respond to offers to
talk.
The only ray of light in Israel's response was
the statement by Foreign Minister Silvan
Shalom, but this was half a step. He did not
respond negatively to Assad's proposal, but he
did not really respond in the affirmative
either with an immediate invitation to talks,
as prime minister Menachem Begin did when
Egyptian president Anwar Sadat made his
proposal.
It seems the foreign minister was cautious
because he did not know how the prime minister
would react and also because he feared -
without cause - that the United States would
oppose a positive Israeli response to the
Syrian suggestion while it is in confrontation
with Syria over other issues, including its
support for terror.
In the opinion of American sources familiar with
the thinking in the administration, it would
have responded positively to an Israeli
acceptance of Assad's proposal. The United
States is not looking in principle for a
military confrontation with Damascus and is
ready to let Assad get onto a positive track.
Despite the suspicions, Israel should have
responded immediately and positively to Assad
and should have expressed a willingness to
renew negotiations. It should have picked up
the gauntlet tossed in its direction and said
there are various issues to be discussed -
including terror and the activities of
Hezbollah.
It should have coordinated the movement with
Washington, just as it does on the Palestinian
issue and above all, it should not avoid
engaging with the Syrians in parallel to what
is being done - or not being done - on the
Palestinian front.
The Palestinians have to know - as they were
told in the Saudi initiative - that they are
not the only player in the Middle Eastern game
with Israel. Israel ought to have a strategic
interest in an agreement with the Syrians. Even
if this is a Syrian maneuver, it is necessary
to respond to it and not to stand stuttering in
response to the proposal from President Assad.