with Syria was possible, first aired during a special Israeli cabinet meeting several months ago. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) intelligence stated that: “Syria could be separated from the Axis of Evil” – Bush’s reference to Iran, North Korea and Iraq following his State of the Union address in 2002 – “especially if America pitched in.” But the enthusiasm of two of the region’s major protagonists, Iran and the US, in helping Israel and Syria find a peaceful resolution to their decades-long conflict, will likely take a back seat to Iranian and American interests in establishing hegemony in the area through their regional proxies. Towards the end of last year Syrian President Bashar Assad called for a new round of talks with Israel, but at the time Olmert, heavily influenced by US President Bush’s neo-conservative dominated administration, rejected the idea. An earlier attempt by Assad in 2003 met a similar fate. But at that time, former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon had been warned by the US not to get involved until Damascus complied with a list of Washington’s preconditions which included cutting off the alleged support of “terrorist organisations”, including Hizbullah and Hamas, and cutting ties with Iran – something as unlikely to happen then as now. Bush also rejected the Iraqi Study Group’s report, released in 2006 in Washington, which called for direct talks between Israel and its neighbours. Neither was the prospect of a settlement between Israel and Syria music to the ears of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who warned Syria against becoming closer with Israel and the US and urged Islamic nations to stand up against western “conspiracies and wars”. Domestically Olmert faced opposition from members of his precarious coalition. The head of the Knesset House Committee, Member of Knesset (MK) David Tal, said he hoped to quickly pass a bill making any Israeli withdrawal from the Golan dependent on a national referendum. Tal also warned that an evacuation of the Golan would draw Hizbullah to the region. MK Arieh Eldad (National Union-National Religious Party) called on opposition leader and Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu to immediately announce “he would not be obligated to any suicidal concession by Olmert”. While the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, Likud MK Yuval Steinitz, said, “Olmert’s willingness to come down from the Golan is an expression of unprecedented political and security anarchy.” He said Israel could not

Peace between Syria and Israel is still possible if the US chooses to exert its influence in an impartial manner. But will it choose to do so?

protect itself and its water sources without the continued occupation of the Golan. Apart from Israel’s security considerations, the Golan’s Lake Kinneret (or Lake Galilee) has been an important water resource for a country which suffers from chronic water shortages. In addition to the lake, Israel relies on the West Bank aquifer in the Palestinian Territories, appropriating 83% of the water for its own use. But unlike the West Bank and Gaza, the Golan Heights do not represent a demographic time bomb, making Israelis less keen on ceding the territory. Olmert would also have to overcome the opposition of many Israelis, especially those living in the Golan who farm fruit and other produce in the fertile soil. A further fly in the ointment has been the CIA’s recent release of satellite photos showing the site of an alleged former nuclear plant in Syria, supposedly built with the help of North Korean officials, the Israelis claimed to have bombed last year (see page 66). The matter remains cloaked in secrecy, with no side confirming or denying, leading to suspicions in certain quarters that the timing of the CIA’s revelation could be a deliberate attempt to scupper any peace talks. While the matter was highly embarrassing for Assad, and could further compound the unpopularity of his regime, analysts were worried he would feel under pressure to retaliate against Israel. The release of the sensitive pictures was sufficient to frighten Israelis as to Syria’s true intentions as well as to persuade Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, to postpone a trip to Washington, where he was scheduled to meet US vice-president, Dick Cheney, and secretary of defence, Robert Gates. Meanwhile on Israel’s northern border, Hizbullah has been busy upping the ante with words and actions. A United Nations

syrian president bashar assad has called for new talks with his israeli neighbour

Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was recently stopped by Hizbullah guerillas after the peacekeepers discovered a truck carrying weapons and ammunition belonging to the group. The incident was the first time UNIFIL forces were confronted by armed Hizbullah men south of Lebanon’s Litani River, an area which Security Council resolution 1701 prohibits Hizbullah from entering. But despite recent developments, peace between Syria and Israel is still possible if the US chooses to exert its influence in an impartial manner. The Americans are capable of putting pressure on the Israelis, through both economic and diplomatic means, but will they choose to do so? In their absence, Assad’s secular regime feels compelled to continue its partnership with theocratic Iran as a means of exerting leverage on Israel. Assad also feels politically marginalised by the more moderate regional powerbrokers acting alongside the Sunni alliance of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Lebanese government majority, and the Gulf States, who are backed by the US and are themselves locked in a power battle with the Shi’ite Crescent. The Shi’ite Crescent of Iran, Iraq’s Shi’ite population, Hizbullah and Syria’s ruling Alawite minority, an offshoot of Shia Islam – even though Syria’s Sunni population is in the majority – are growing in power. If Syria is to be brought back into the more moderate camp and peace between Israel and Syria is to be achieved, the intervention of a credible US administration is essential and sooner, rather than later. n

The Middle easT June 2008 13