Credit:UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

The Israeli prime minister seeks to redeem himself.

Gabriela Perdomo - When your country borders on Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel, you probably know you could hold the key to make or break peace in the Middle East. Syria's enigmatic president, Bashar Assad, seems to be aware of this, and so far has played his cards for the worse. But recent attempts to restore a dialogue with Israel are a good sign that there might be hope for a shift on policy.

On Jun. 8, a press report revealed the government of Ehud Olmert in Israel has been using secret channels to approach Assad's administration and resume peace talks stalled since January 2000, shortly before Assad took office from his father, Hefez Assad. In recent days, such communications were made somewhat public, and it was revealed they were conducted with the help of Greek foreign minister Dora Bakoyannis.

The message on both sides is loud and clear: Israel is ready to give up the Golan Heights in exchange for Syria cutting ties with Iran, Lebanon-based Hezbollah and Palestinian militant organizations. Syria, on the other hand, responded through its deputy foreign minister Ahmed Arnous on Jun. 12, saying, "Syria is prepared to renew talks based upon the land for peace principle, without preconditions, to bring about stability and security in the region."

Both messages have already encountered an obvious obstacle. Israel wants a dialogue with conditions; Syria wants to sit on the table without them. But simply addressing the possibility of dialogue can only be a good sign given the gloom circumstances surrounding the whole Middle East region today.

Israel now has the chance to make this happen, but it will take a great deal of will. In the country—where, contrary to Syria, politicians actually have to respond to their voters for their actions—the sole idea of approaching Syria is a tough sell. A recent Teleseker poll reveals that 74 per cent of Israelis do not believe Assad intends to reach a peace deal. The Golan Heights issue also touches a very sensitive fibre of Israeli identity: territory. Another study by the Dahaf Institute suggests more than half of Israelis reject giving any land concessions in exchange for full peace; and 68 per cent of those surveyed oppose giving the Golan Heights back to Syria even if it means long-lasting peace.

Olmert himself had, until very recently, sided with the majority. In August 2006, when Israeli internal security minister Avi Dichter proposed negotiating for peace with Syria in return for the territory seized in the 1967 war, he declared: "So long as I am prime minister, the Golan Heights will remain in our hands, as it is an inseparable part of the State of Israel." The good news is Olmert's popularity is at an all-time low, he might actually be on his way out before the year ends, so he has little to lose. If the prime minister finds the way to convince his broken cabinet to advance the talks with Syria, the deal could have a great chance to succeed. It could well be political suicide, but the deal could survive even if Olmert does not.

A peace agreement of any kind, especially if it entails a commitment from Syria to stop fuelling and financing conflict in the region, would be undoubtedly backed by the international community. If Olmert and his Kadima party are replaced in power, the pressure from outside could be enough to prevent a new government's attempt to break the deal.

Olmert and Israel should seriously consider the possibility of giving up the Golan Heights. Assad's government is unpredictable, but it would be positive to give it a chance to sit at a negotiating table. Amos Yadlin, head of Israel's army intelligence, recently warned Syria is preparing for a potential military confrontation with Israel. In his words, it is "making very real preparations, cleaning army posts, conducting large drills and strengthening defences. (...) They are reaching a state of readiness for war more than in the past, but this doesn't mean they'll be ready for war tomorrow." If Olmert's options come down to talking or engaging in the second conflict of his tenure, there might be hope that his decision has already been made in favour of dialogue.

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.