Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

The Heights

U.S. and Israeli policymakers are yet to acknowledge that their decades-long push to use the Golan to make peace with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a far-fetched dream

Print Email
Syranian demonstrators attempting to enter the Golan Heights flee IDF teargas earlier this month. (Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images)
Related Content

Fashionable

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is every bit as dangerous and thuggish as his autocratic counterparts across the Middle East, yet for some reason Washington continues to embrace him

Syriana

Bashar al-Assad has maintained his country’s key position in Mideast politics by drawing out the peace process and turning it into warfare by other means

The Obama Administration’s decision to refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court for alleged human-rights abuses suggests that U.S. policy toward his government is finally shifting. The Damascus regime’s radical violence against its own people seems to have disabused the White House of the notion that the Syrian president is a reform-minded and Westernized Arab leader with whom they can do business. With the death toll mounting and thousands of Syrian refugees crossing the border into Turkey for fear of reprisals from Assad’s security forces, the White House finally seems to have concluded that a humanitarian crisis is unfolding, one for which Assad, his brother Maher, and their clique are responsible.

For more than 20 years—through both Republican and Democratic administrations—bolstering the Assad regime and securing a peace deal with Israel have been important goals of both American and Israeli policy. In the decades-old fantasy that Washington policymakers now appear to be abandoning, Bashar, like his father Hafez before him, was seen as a pragmatist who would forgo his alliance with Iran and Hezbollah in exchange for Israel returning the Golan Heights. So what if Israel was giving up a strategic plateau that the Syrians could use to rain down fire on the villages of the northern Galillee as they had before 1967, went the thinking—there was going to be peace with Syria.

Unlike the Palestinian track of Middle East peace negotiation—which was beset by competing factions and the meddling of Arab neighbors—the Syrian track, managed by one Arab strongman who can make and enforce decisions, was seen as the easy peace. Israelis would finally get to have hummus in Damascus! Negotiations advanced far, under both Prime Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli leaders.

But over the last three months, the premises on which this joint American-Israeli policy were based have been shown to be insane. Assad’s actions—the torture, mutilation, and murder of teenagers, using tanks and artillery to lay siege to towns, and now the use of helicopter gunships against unarmed civilians—are a public repudiation of every one of the premises of what has been the dominant school of thought in Israel-Syria relations. And yet almost no one has said anything about these ideas being wrong—a silence that means that regardless of who ends up ruling Syria, the Golan is going to be on the table again, and American and Israeli officials are going to be pushing Israel to make a peace deal with Damascus.

Among the few pundits who have admitted they were wrong is Israeli columnist Sever Plocker of Yediot Ahronoth. Long a believer that “Israel can achieve peace with Assad’s regime in exchange for willingness to withdraw from the Golan Heights,” as he wrote in April, Plocker now admits he was mistaken. His error, he says, was that he “did not take into account the Damascus regime’s tyrannical character.”

Plocker’s confession is heartfelt, but he’s still wrong. Who did he think was responsible for killing tens of thousands of Syrians at Hama in 1982 if not then-President Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father? Plocker could not see the nature of the regime because he was afflicted with the same vanity that has corrupted Israeli and American policymakers who have sought for decades to arrange for the lamb to lie down with the lion, and be crowned as peacemakers: an obsession with peace, which blinded them to the character of a regime that murders its own citizens with conscience. He is still wrong because he thinks the problem is simply that Israel should not make peace with such a regime, when the reality is that peace is not in Israel’s power to make. Jerusalem cannot make a deal because the Syrians are incapable of cutting such a deal. The reasons for this are strategic, historical, and existential.

The strategic reasons have been obvious for years, even as many U.S. and Israeli officials have chosen to ignore them. It is only Damascus’ proxy war with Israel, through its alliance with Iran and support for Hezbollah, that has earned this state sponsor of terror the prestige that U.S. engagement has afforded this mid-sized Arab state with very limited natural resources. The regime’s self-image requires it, as Assad said in a speech Monday, to demand respect according to its historical size, not its geographical size. For U.S. diplomats, a peace deal means that they get to take Syria off their to-do list and move on to other problems. But for Assad it means that he has cashed in the only chips he had and is no longer able to project regional or international power.

Some argue that knocking Syria down to size would leave it resembling something like Jordan: a second-tier Arab power without oil. The difference is that unlike Jordan’s Sunni Hashemite royalty, Syria’s ruling family is drawn from its Alawite minority, and it is received wisdom in the region that minority regimes can’t cut a deal with Israel. Only the Sunnis, the regional majority, have the final say over such major decisions in the Middle East.

For centuries, the Sunnis have had it in for the Alawites, whom they consider heretics. Prior to Syrian independence, a group of Alawite notables petitioned the French mandate authorities for their own state so that they would not have to live with the Sunnis. “The spirit of hatred and fanaticism embedded in the hearts of the Arab Muslims against everything that is non-Muslim has been perpetually nurtured by the Islamic religion,” read the letter—one of whose signatories was Suleiman al-Assad, said to be Bashar’s great-grandfather.

Eventually, the Alawite accommodation with their countrymen was to out-Sunni the Sunnis regarding Israel. After Hafez al-Assad lost the Golan to Israel twice, first as defense minister and next as president, he turned to resistance, a trend amplified by his son. While Assad warns that he’d be replaced by the much more dangerous Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist factions should his regime be toppled, the current ruling structure is the exaggerated cartoon version of a radical Sunni regime, which is to say that if Assad falls, there’s nothing worse that will follow.

In fact, some argue that a Sunni regime might represent the best chance for a peace deal, as Israel’s two peace treaties are with Sunni powers: Egypt and Jordan. And yet some analysts seem to have misunderstood the significance of the opposition’s chant, “No Iran, no Hezbollah. We want a Muslim who fears God.” To be sure, the Sunni-majority opposition is against the Shia-led resistance bloc, but not because they favor living in comity with their Jewish neighbors in Israel. It simply means they despise the Shia and their allies, like their own Alawite regime, as well as Israel.

Syria is not a state in the Western sense but rather is an interlocking network of tribal and sectarian systems. At present, the clique around Assad, including the security services and paramilitary forces, represents the most powerful gathering. They have spilled rivers of blood in tribal areas like Daraa not because they do not understand that their murders and mutilations have incurred blood debts against them that will last generations, but to show that they are powerful enough not to care. In other words, any peace treaty signed by Syria’s ruler would not be between states, but between confessional sects and tribes. The Alawites can’t cut a deal with the Jews, because they don’t have a deal with the Sunnis.

The Assad regime is the culmination of many hundreds of years of intra-Arab civil war. Before Syria’s ruling establishment is capable of making peace with Israel, it will have to preside over a peace process between Syrians themselves. And before that can happen, Syrians are going to have to get tired of shedding each other’s blood. That’s some way off yet. In the meantime, there’s no point in leading the Israelis to slaughter as well.

Print Email
Binyamin in O says:

So now the Arab Spring is another pretext for not making peace. Here’s a different idea: Bibi announces Israel is ready for a comprehensive peace based on the Saudi Peace Plan (aka, the Arab Peace Initiative) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative.

If you really want to know what’s blocking peace in the Mideast, just read the Wikipedia entry on Benzion Netanyahu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzion_Netanyahu#Later_life

Gene says:

To the most rhetorical question of all leftists – “why do they hate us?” maybe we should try first to answer the easier one: “why would they love us, the infidels, if they hate each other so much?”

dusan says:

What dream? Pure and simple: the reality of the region.

Lynne T says:

Thanks for the handy link, Binyamin, which includes reference to the following:

“By rejecting ‘patriation’ (tawtin in Arabic) or the resettlement of the refugees in any Arab state, the Arab Peace Initiative essentially leaves each refugee with no choice but to go to Israel itself.[74] The Arab states used even more explicit language on this point in a Final Statement that accompanied their initiative. It rejected any solution that involves “resettling of the Palestinians outside of their homes.”[75] What this means is that the Arab Peace Initiative opposes keeping any Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan; it also does not envision the Palestinian refugees being resettled in a West Bank and Gaza Palestinian state.[76]”

Ultimately, the “Arab Peace Plan” amounts to a “one-state” solution (Muslim), which, of course, would be unacceptable to any Israeli prime minister, not just Netanyahu or any Likudnik/right wing successor.

Binyamin in O says:

To Lynne T: Couldn’t the “right of return” be a subject for discussion at the bargaining table? Instead, Bibi has announced that not a single Arab “so-called refugee” will be allowed to return to Israel, and Jerusalem will never be divided. And while we’re at it, wouldn’t it serve the cause of peace for Israel to come to the UN now and say, yes, we too favor a Palestinian state (as Bibi himself announced in his Bar Ilan speech). And here is our proposed map. And here is the language we want added to ensure the security of both states.

The reason Bibi, and Israel, cannot do that is because they, in their hearts, hate the Arabs and will never allow them to have genuine state power over a single inch of Eretz Isroiel. All this twaddle about two states is just throwing sand into the eyes of the goyim, which every real Zionist believes is Israel’s right to do.

wally K says:

Binyamin has selective amnesia.The Jews forced out of their homes in Arab states leaving their possessions and assets in the billions have no right of return.They have made productive lives elsewhere.Let the “So called” refugees do the same.
Borders and peace can only occur when Israel has a viable negotiating partner.Everyone with half a brain knows posturing is part of the process.
About 11 years ago,Arafat could have had peace with most of the territorial gains now in dispute.He like Abbas and every so called Palestinean leader can’t say yes to any reasonable offer.
When the Arabs want peace as much as the Israelis,a negotiated settlement will magically appear.

Steve says:

Lee Smith actually realizes most of the problem. However, Isreal is too good of an external enemy for any regime to need to seek solutions to internal problems. In pre-Israel days, when the Jews were buying crap land from the sheiks and turning it productive, the felahim [sic] could have learned the same, were they allowed [or heaven help us, did they try], NO. When the Jews left Gaza, what did happen to the working orange tree plantation left behind? Without the Jews as enemies, what would happen in the region? My thinking says mutual tribal and sectional slaughter.

Steve says:

Oh, and Wally K. right on.

Jehudah Ben-Israel says:

Having invaded Israel by Syria in 1948, using the Golan as a staging ground, for the purpose of erasing Israel from the face of earth and any Jewish existence in it; using it again in 1967; and, attempting to ensure Israel’s demise once again in 1973, using the eastern part of the Golan; are enough reasons for Israel to insist on retaining the Golan.

Moreover, in doing the above, the Syrians broke international law as well as written cease fire agreements with Israel, thus doubling Israelis reluctant to trust Syria, under two different regimes, incidentally.

And, these days, Syria is a pivotal member of the Iran-Hizballah-IslamicJihad-Hamas-Syria coalition of Islamic and Arab forces eager to bring about Israel’s elimination by wiping it off the face of earth.

Thus, one must ask: What other country would hand over territory such as the Golan to any coalition of forces eager to use it in the way Syria has demonstrated time and again it is eager to do…?? Would any European country do so…?? Would any Latin American country hand over territory in such a way…?? Would Canada…?? Would Australia…?? And, of course, would the United States, even when lead by Mr. B.H.Obama…??

Thus, why should Israel ever hand over the Golan to anyone…??!!

P.S. And we haven’t touched upon the fact that historically, the Golan has been a part and parcel of Eretz Israel and populated by members of the Jewish people, as demonstrated by Biblical accounts, historical documents as well as archeaological evidence.

Darth Mohl says:

I’d like to add something: The letter of the Alawite leaders in the 30′ also supported the creation of a Jewish state in British mandate Palestine, as a bulwark of resistance to the Sunni force!

Who is creating these disturbances there? Who is killing soldiers? Who is creating chaos over there?

Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you call that an operation for the people?

The only reason they carry out these disturbances is to get a license to go ahead bomb the government and take over their country. Is this what we are all going to support now? Is this what we are going to stand for now? That thousands of people be killed … millions of them be displaced … just so that a few people can get what they want. C’mon man!

Read more:

http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/story-notes/390-saturday-june-18-2011.html

Bill Pearlman says:

Assad is a snake and his old man was worse. End of story.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

The Heights

U.S. and Israeli policymakers are yet to acknowledge that their decades-long push to use the Golan to make peace with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a far-fetched dream

More on Tablet:

Sam Harris: ‘Why Don’t I Criticize Israel?’

By Sam Harris — The famed and controversial atheist weighs in on Gaza