Syria was not the central feature of the December 4th "Policy Conference" sponsored by the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute (which is in turn sponsored by the American Jewish Committee). I will be returning to the Brussels conference in subsequent posts, but I thought that the discussion of one aspect of the Annapolis Conference - which was largely dissed by most panel members (which included Arabs, Israelis, Europeans, and Americans) for its vagueness and lack of a follow-on work program - deserves special attention. And that is the matter of Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Historical note: the strategic Golan Heights were occupied by Israel, first in the June 1967 "Six Day War," then expanded during the 1973 Yom Kippur (or, if you are using Arab appellation, the Ramadan War). In the long years of the Hafez al-Assad reign, there was never any question of Israeli surrender of these 444 square miles since without a serious peace agreement, as it would be tantamount to giving an enemy sniper a roost in your tallest tree.
But things could be changing. Syria's attendance at the Annapolis Conference, according to the AP's Sam Ghattas, has been
paying off for President Bashar Assad. The Arab world is treating Damascus more warmly, the sharp criticism from Washington has tapered off and Syria is getting credit inside Iraq for a drop in cross-border infiltration of foreign fighters. In Lebanon, the army commander approved by Syria nine years ago when it ran Lebanon is edging closer to becoming the new president, after the anti-Syria, U.S.-backed parliamentary majority dropped its candidates and backed him. The about-face, which is expected to preserve Syrian interests, wouldn't have been possible without the thaw in Syrian-U.S. relations.
The article goes on to chronicle a whirlwind of Syrian diplomatic activity, with its Deputy Foreign Minister flying to Iran to reassure its old ally, but also Syrian discussions with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.
But it is the Israeli connection that is the most intriguing. At the Transatlantic Institute yesterday, David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) - whose organization appears to have excellent access to PM Ehud Olmert and others in the Israeli establishment - said that the Israeli Army leadership is among the "biggest cheerleaders" for pursuing a rapprochement with Syria. The Annapolis agenda of weakening ties between Syria and Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas is seen very favorably in Israeli circles. The thinking is that Syria's relationship with Iran, one of almost equals when allies in the Iran-Iraq War of the eighties, has changed considerably for Syria - now definitely the junior partner - and therefore possibly amenable to Israeli overtures. Interestingly, though the post-Annapolis Syrian mission to Iran allowed Iranian President Ahmadinajad to fulminate against the US and Israel, Syria did not repudiate the Annapolis Conference.
A separate peace between Israel and Syria, a la Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan, may be a chimera, especially in the absence of an overall Arab-Israeli peace. But then again it just could be an obtainable goal, and one that - with tripwires, guarantees, confidence-building measures, etc. - could be made to work. This optimism over Syrian prospects contrasts sharply with general pessimism over the ability of Abbas and Olmert to come to any lasting solution to the Palestine-Israel dilemma. More on that to follow.