The Micah Report Columns Thoughts Predictions About Micah Archives Contact
The Micah Report

« Iran Assassinated Egyptian Diplomat | Main | Another Proud Terrorist Family »

A FUTURE FOR SYRIA AND ISRAEL
By Micah Halpern

Tuesday January 30, 2007

Column:

At the beginning of this millennium, if you had asked me if I thought there was any chance of peace between Syria and Israel, I would have nodded wisely, stroked my chin and said "dream on." But now, despite the denials and the hostilities there seems to be reason to hold out at least some hope of a formalized peace between these two apparent enemies.

Syria and Israel have collaborated on a non-paper. And that, although it is not supposed to be made public in the news, is good news.

A non-paper is a non-formal, non-binding, non-publicized document formulated in a non-threatening, non-intimidating way by non-official people representing real governments. A non-paper can, and often will, later serve as either a blueprint or starting point for a formal, binding, public document.

Countries have always engaged in secret talks - even countries that are sworn and avowed arch enemies. Even countries like Syria and Israel. The talks are usually stimulated by and even come with the blessings of the concerned governments. The talks are a way of testing the waters, of determining how far apart the two countries are on important make-or-break issues, a way of determining whether bridges can be built, on whether it is worth the investment of time and energy and international scrutiny - or not. And the document that is produced when the talks are successful - the non-paper - has no legal validity and has no value of a treaty, but is proof that there is a mutual desire to meet and to talk, it is the foundation for official, public negotiations.

In the case of Syria and Israel the informal, unofficial talks were conducted under the careful and quiet sponsorship of neutral Switzerland. The participants were representative though not representatives of the governments. Some of the proposals as put forth in writing are logical others are more fanciful, some are practical others quite frankly, are preposterous.

For example:
Article IV-8 in the non-paper states: The Parties will cooperate in fighting local and international terrorism of all kinds.
This is probably the most unrealistic statement of the entire document. How can Syria, one of the parties, fight terror when Syria unabashedly, unquestionably strongly and openly sponsors terror?

For example:
Article IV-9 in the non-paper states: The Parties will work together for a stable and safe Middle East, including the solution of regional problems related to the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iran.
This is probably the second most unrealistic statement of the entire document. Syria views Lebanon as a province, not as a problem. Proof of that is the reality that here is no Syrian embassy in Beirut, there is no need for one - as far as Syria is concerned, the two countries are one and the same separated by an insignificant technicality called a border. Syria does not want a stable Lebanon and therefore, Syria will not work towards stabilizing Lebanon. Remember - this is important - just this past August Syria sponsored a war against Israel using Lebanon as a spring board.

This entire paragraph is predicated on the principle that the Syrians are willing to trade in a long, binding friendship with Lebanon and a strong friendship with Iran and comradely brotherhood with the Palestinians for Israel, the new friends on the block. I think not.

For example:
Article VI-1 in the non-paper states: In order to safeguard the water resources of the Jordan River basin, Syrian territory east of the mutually agreed border will be designated as a Park open to all and administered by Syria. The Park is to be established in the Golan Heights upon completion of the Israeli withdrawal and application of Syrian sovereignty in accordance with the treaty of peace.
I love it. Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights is a given if there is ever to be peace between Syria and Israel. The idea of a park is brilliant, even visionary - but impractical.

Here's why:
Article VI-2 in the non-paper states: Park is open to tourism.
Park will be policed by Syrian park service personnel.
Park will be free of permanent residents except for conservation and law enforcement personnel.
No visa will be required for entry into park (from Israeli territory).
It is quite a leap of faith to believe that Syria will not militarize the Golan - park or no park. The time is not yet ready for Syrians and Israelis to share picnic tables, marvel at the beauty of wild flowers and hike peacefully through the Golan hills.

It is a start, a significant. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But sometime in the not too very distant future Syria and Israel will be openly, publicly, sharing a table and talking peace.

4 June 2017 12:14 PM in Columns


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://micahhalpern.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/818

Comments


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



Powered by Movable Type     Site design by Sekimori