From Damascus to Jerusalem: A Syrian’s Case for Peace Talks

By Murhaf Jouejati

Published December 24, 2004, issue of December 24, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

It used to be that Israel was the one seeking peace and Syria the one turning it down. Of late, however, it has been Damascus extending the olive branch — and making a whole lot of people scratch their heads. Is Syria serious about wanting to resume peace talks? Should Israel shun Damascus’s invitation, or should it explore, if not exploit, this opportunity?

Israeli leaders are arguing that Syria is using the resumption of talks as a ploy to dilute Washington’s mounting pressure on Damascus. Syrian officials, meanwhile, say they are reaching out to Israel in large part because the United States seems to have forfeited its role of honest broker in the region in general, and toward Syria in particular. Washington’s pressure on Prime Minister Sharon to reject Syrian overtures — out of State Department fears that Syrian-Israeli talks will sidetrack Israel’s planned withdrawal from Gaza and Defense Department insistence that Syria be held accountable for its role in Iraq — is one case in point.

Whatever Syria’s motivation in wanting to resume unconditional bilateral talks with Israel, the bottom line is that Damascus’s offer represents a unique opportunity to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.

That Syria seeks a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict should not be seen as the product of any love Syrians have for Israel — they have none. Rather, Damascus wants peace with Israel for the simple reason that peace is in Syria’s national interest. Syria’s goal has been and continues to be the containment of Israel within its 1967 boundaries. Given Israel’s superior military — and few people in Syria harbor any doubts that Israel is militarily superior to any combination of Arab power — Syria has come to acknowledge that its goal cannot be achieved by force. This no-nonsense assessment has been the cornerstone of Syria’s Israel policy since the collapse of its superpower patron, the Soviet Union, and it is on this premise that the late president Hafez Assad engaged Israel in bilateral peace talks until his passing in 2000.

But even though this sober assessment might provide Israel with more of a security guarantee than Israel’s doctrine of military superiority, Sharon continues to oppose the resumption of peace talks with Syria, and this despite the advice of his top brass. From a strict balance of power standpoint, Sharon is right: Israel is now so powerful that it need not resume talks, let alone withdraw from the Golan Heights. Furthermore, Syria has scrupulously adhered to the status quo for the past 30 years, and nothing suggests that it will do things differently now. Syria is now weak, and therefore not a threat to Israel. Under these circumstances, why should Israel give Syria anything?

The balance of power should rightly be the major consideration in the strategic calculi of Israeli decision-makers. It should not, however, be the only one.

With Syria calling for peace, it makes sense for Israel to seize the opportunity not out of Israeli affection for Syria — there is none — but rather to accomplish what Israel has sought throughout its embattled history: to be accepted in the region and to live within secure and recognized boundaries, free from the threat of war. Indeed, peace with Syria removes a major part of that threat. It is worth remembering that during the Syrian-Israeli peace talks in January 2000, Damascus accepted the principle of normalization of relations, including the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two states and the free flow of people and goods and services across the border; a mutual security regime; and the establishment of a joint water-sharing mechanism, which has critical geopolitical implications. Over and above that, peace with Syria opens the door to the normalization of relations between Israel and all other Arab countries.

Moreover, despite its current weakness, Syria still holds many important cards. Peace with Syria weakens Hezbollah and Hamas. Peace with Syria neutralizes Iran. Peace with Syria also means that Damascus could, for a price, be helpful in solving the thorny issue of Palestinian refugees. If Israel plays its cards right and accepts the land-for-peace equation, Syria might be willing to absorb the roughly half-million Palestinian refugees residing in Syria.

Syria might also be able to aid Israel in reaching a more favorable agreement on the absorption of the roughly quarter-million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. While it would be difficult for Damascus to persuade Beirut to resettle all its Palestinian refugees, Syria wields substantial clout in Lebanon. Such influence, however, might not last for long, to judge by the growing pressure from Washington on Syria to withdraw its troops.

If Syrian and Israeli leaders seize the opportunity, there is now a chance for both peoples to live and let live. The current convergence of interests could well mean that the two longtime belligerents need not be locked in a warring relationship forever.

Find us on Facebook!
  • Why genocide is always wrong, period. And the fact that some are talking about it shows just how much damage the war in Gaza has already done.
  • Construction workers found a 75-year-old deli sign behind a closing Harlem bodega earlier this month. Should it be preserved?
  • "The painful irony in Israel’s current dilemma is that it has been here before." Read J.J. Goldberg's latest analysis of the conflict:
  • Law professor Dan Markel waited a shocking 19 minutes for an ambulance as he lay dying after being ambushed in his driveway. Read the stunning 911 transcript as neighbor pleaded for help.
  • Happy birthday to the Boy Who Lived! July 31 marks the day that Harry Potter — and his creator, J.K. Rowling — first entered the world. Harry is a loyal Gryffindorian, a matchless wizard, a native Parseltongue speaker, and…a Jew?
  • "Orwell would side with Israel for building a flourishing democracy, rather than Hamas, which imposed a floundering dictatorship. He would applaud the IDF, which warns civilians before bombing them in a justified war, not Hamas terrorists who cower behind their own civilians, target neighboring civilians, and planned to swarm civilian settlements on the Jewish New Year." Read Gil Troy's response to Daniel May's opinion piece:
  • "My dear Penelope, when you accuse Israel of committing 'genocide,' do you actually know what you are talking about?"
  • What's for #Shabbat dinner? Try Molly Yeh's coconut quinoa with dates and nuts. Recipe here:
  • Can animals suffer from PTSD?
  • Is anti-Zionism the new anti-Semitism?
  • "I thought I was the only Jew on a Harley Davidson, but I was wrong." — Gil Paul, member of the Hillel's Angels.
  • “This is a dangerous region, even for people who don’t live there and say, merely express the mildest of concern about the humanitarian tragedy of civilians who have nothing to do with the warring factions, only to catch a rash of *** (bleeped) from everyone who went to your bar mitzvah! Statute of limitations! Look, a $50 savings bond does not buy you a lifetime of criticism.”
  • That sound you hear? That's your childhood going up in smoke.
  • "My husband has been offered a terrific new job in a decent-sized Midwestern city. This is mostly great, except for the fact that we will have to leave our beloved NYC, where one can feel Jewish without trying very hard. He is half-Jewish and was raised with a fair amount of Judaism and respect for our tradition though ultimately he doesn’t feel Jewish in that Larry David sort of way like I do. So, he thinks I am nuts for hesitating to move to this new essentially Jew-less city. Oh, did I mention I am pregnant? Seesaw, this concern of mine is real, right? There is something to being surrounded by Jews, no? What should we do?"
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?

We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.