| Tarek Barakat | Fashion Industry | Dubai |
Re: ‘Syrian Israeli Peace Process’
Unfortunately, I am a firm believer that the Israeli governments’ strategic policy has been and continues to be one of maintaining controllable conflict in the region. Because they feel that if peace and prosperity should ever reign across the region for a long period of time. Israel would lose its primary justification in requesting US political, financial and military aid. To put it simply, as long as there is a threat of war the money will keep flowing in and Israel will maintain their edge.
For the above dynamics to seem less appealing, one of two things need to occur:
– A massive shift in regional power where the Syrians and/or their allies attain military forces to counter the Israeli one. And a genuine threat to Israel’s existence will force it to compromise.
– A shift in American or Israeli strategic interest toward peace with Syria through social or political means.
Both scenarios seem unlikely to me at the moment. But the first scenario is only likely if Iran develops a sophisticated nuclear arsenal and passes some of these weapons to Syria. Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous since another more devastating scenario can develop through such a move.
The second is slightly more likely. But many factors need to change from the current state of affairs. First a change of leadership is necessary in the US and Israel since the current American leadership is uninterested in a peace legacy while Olmert & Co. are simply too weak and don’t’ have the authority to push their citizens through tough compromises. But even if the next US administration is peace-friendly (i.e. Obama) they will only be able to push Israel to give up the Golan in exchange for larger gains such as delaying the Palestinian peace track indefinitely. As Sami Moubayed reminds us in his latest piece in The Washington Post “[Begin] was not flirting with Sadat because he wanted peace. On the contrary, he wanted to drown the efforts of the then recently elected US president Jimmy Carter to broker peace between Israel and Yasser Arafat.” We should also factor in that the Syrian government will have something to lose from a peace deal. The Emergency Laws which have been key to the regime’s security will need to be halted. That said the pros in form of legacy, economic incentives in the form of massive foreign investments should outweigh the cons.
On the other hand, if we are to assume that peace will only be attainable if all of the Golan is returned to Syria. Then Syria will need to sacrifice the following.
– Detach itself from the Palestinian track. This is a highly unpopular move among Arab nationalists in Syria and the Arab world, and there are many of them. Syria prides itself as the last “Arab Fort”. But this Arab fort will have to crumble to its own self interests since the first option above is less than likely. Criticism can be blunted by the Syrian government reminding people that it was the Egyptians, Jordanians and Palestinians (PLO) who broke away individually first. Easier said than done but certainly not impossible.
– Neutralize Hizbullah. This I believe will be easier than many would think. If all Lebanese & Syrian land is returned, there won’t be a justification for HA presence. A symbolic “resistance” might remain to (morally) support the Palestinians but it will be toothless. But I doubt HA would be interested in fully integrating into the Lebanese Army. Instead they will wane over time without intense Syrian & Iranian support.
– A key requirement by Israel in any peace deal and the most difficult juggling act will be Syria’s relationship with Iran. Since both countries have strong strategic partnership that will not be easily dismantled. But over time a shift to a more balanced Syrian relationship with other key nations in the region (Israel, KSA, etc.) should soften the Iranian stance over Israel and in turn put the latter in relative ease.
I might be contradicting what I said in the first paragraph when I say that I believe Israel knows peace is eventually in its best interest. It knows that it cannot exist indefinitely within a sea of hostile nations. It just doesn’t feel it is in its best interest for the short to mid term. We also should remember that even strong nations such as Israel & Iran are ultimately part of a greater game between greater powers (i.e. US vs. Europe) where both parties will continue to push for peace when war is in the other party’s interest and vice versa. While I might be stating the obvious here, but the struggle for peace in the Middle East will remain a swim against the current for all groups and individuals who are pursing it.
(3 votes, average: 2.67 out of 5)
Loading...
