Unrest in Syria is causing Washington to reassess its approach to the Assad regime in Damascus. Of course, Joe Lieberman has chimed in, and he has the chutzpah to try to tell us that the Arab world is clamoring for us to impose a no-flight zone on Syria. When Joe Lieberman tells you what the Arab street wants is the same as what he wants, grab your wallet.
Syria has always been key to resolving the impasse between the Israelis and the Palestinians. During the 1967 war, Israel took land from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Egypt and Jordan came to an accommodation with Israel in peace treaties signed in 1979 and 1994, respectively. Syria has never come to any understanding with Israel regarding their lost land. Therefore, Israel has found itself fighting the Syrians through their proxies for the last thirty years. This has mostly taken the form of military actions taken in Lebanon. Lebanon’s politics have been dominated by Syrian and (increasingly over time) Iranian influence. But Syria also supports Hamas and provides their leadership shelter.
Syria is basically the conduit for Iranian influence over the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they are also a strong source of pressure and resistance against Israel. If Syria could be convinced to come to some understanding with Israel, then no one on Israel’s borders would be threatening to them, and they’d be theoretically more willing to make concessions for peace. That’s the theory anyway, and part of it would require the Assad regime to make a break with the Iranian Revolutionary government in Teheran.
This is basically the path the Obama administration has pursued with Syria up to now. But if the Assad regime were to fall, it might be replaced by a government much less friendly to Iran. Why? Because the vast majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims who aren’t religiously or ethnically inclined to take instructions from Persian Shi’ites. That development could make for a diminishment of Hizbollah’s power and influence in Lebanon.
All of these geo-political calculations are interesting to ponder, but I believe they are based on a fundamentally flawed premise. The premise is that Israel would abandon the settlements (or most of them) in exchange for peace, if they felt secure on their borders. I used to believe that, and I believe it might once have been true. I don’t know that it is true anymore. Israel’s demographics have changed. Their politics have changed. I just don’t see a real longing for peace anymore. I see a real longing for building more settlements and a real longing to keep those settlements. And I see less resistance to this idea in Israel’s political conversation.
But the debate is probably moot because the whole discussion was premised on the peace agreements holding with Egypt and Jordan. The idea was to add Syria to the mix. Now the governments of all three countries are insecure, and, as a result, their prior agreements are insecure, too.
There was a window of time between 1979 and this year when Israel might have negotiated a land for peace agreement for a two-state solution. I think the old window is closed or closing now. Any new peace process is going to be based on different architecture.
But, obviously, who runs Syria is pretty important. Just don’t think the Arab street is clamoring for western intervention there.
It may have been true after Israel was founded, but post-1967 it’s never been true, and it should have been obvious to anyone paying attention.
The world is changing, with more countries having shared power and influence in the world. It’s time for the U.S. to realize that and give up its imperialism. I had high hopes that the Obama administration would normalize relations with Syria — in fact there were leaks that we would back in 2009 — but simply appointing an ambassador to Syria while renewing sanctions simply doesn’t cut it.
Meanwhile, Zionists are freaking out, and have every reason to want to keep the Assad family in power:
Assad’s fall could deliver Lebanon to Iran and Hezbollah
Shouldn’t we get something of value from Syria in return for fully normalized relations? Do you think we have received sufficient value? What about now that they’re gunning people down in the streets?
“Shouldn’t we get something of value from Syria in return for fully normalized relations?…What about now that they’re gunning people down in the streets?“
Oh, cut the high and mighty holier than thou BS. You expect to get “something of value” for merely treating Syria with normal, common respect?! WTF?!
Do you seriously believe the United States government would react any differently under the circumstances? Do you seriously believe they would not gun people down in the streets for calling for and threatening the overthrow of the government? Have they not gunned people down in the streets for much much less?
And look how the U.S. government reacted to the attempt by some states to secede? I’d say they did a lot worse than merely gunning people down in the streets.
And how should the United States be penalized for destroying entire countries? Clean up your own bloody act before you start preaching to others.
When you say “window” do you mean the window extended through the entire period of 1979-2011 or that there was a period somewhere in those ~30 years where there was a window?
That’s a complicated question to answer. Israel is boxed in in large part by its own political landscape, so what might be possible in theory is not necessarily possible in practice. Finding a point in time in which Israel’s domestic politics reached a tipping point against a settlement is hard, but surely occurred at some point during the Bush/Cheney years. But, the other countries that would make peace with Israel and sign off on a settlement, those countries had their hands open almost up until today. Syria was the exception (along with their patron Iran, and their proxies). What’s closed is the old framework for peace. The old path is closed or closing.
“the other countries that would make peace with Israel and sign off on a settlement, those countries had their hands open almost up until today. Syria was the exception…“
That is simply false.
Israel is the problem here, not Syria.
we’ll find the money to invade syria, don’t you worry. We’ll use the same funds we used to pay for Libya.
meanwhile, another $20 Billion in cuts to programs we desperately need here in the US.
Maybe the people of the US should do like Peter Sellers in “The Mouse that Roared” and declare war on the US. When we defeat ourselves, there will be all sorts of money for reconstruction.
“Egypt and Jordan came to an accommodation with Israel in peace treaties signed in 1979 and 1994, respectively.“
Israel withdrew from the Egyptian sovereign territory it was occupying and illegally colonizing, and whose resources (land and oil) it was stealing in violation of international law and using for its own profit. That allowed Egypt “came to an accommodation” with Israel. The “Jordanian” land Israel occupied in 1967, significantly ethnically cleansed, and began illegally colonizing and exploiting resources from within weeks was never part of sovereign Jordan, and contained a troublesome population consisting largely of refugees from 1948. Therefore, the illegal occupation and colonization of that territory was not a serious impediment to Jordan “coming to an accommodation” with Israel.
“Syria has never come to any understanding with Israel regarding their lost land.“
Syria’s “lost land” is an integral and very valuable part of Syrian sovereign territory which Israel has largely and selectively ethnically cleansed, illegally colonized, illegally annexed, and whose natural resources (primarily water) Israel is exploiting and profiting from. Why the hell should Syria “come to an accommodation” regarding their stolen sovereign land?
In fact President Asad has made a number of overtures regarding peace with Israel, and gotten the middle finger every time.
For the record, pretty much everyone who is really knowledgeable on Syria, including every Syrian I know (and that includes people who have no love for Asad) agrees that if free and fair elections were held in Syria, Asad would be elected, but most of the rest of the regime would be out. Asad is dealing to a great extent with his dad’s old regime/cronies/etc. Nevertheless he has managed to do a number of beneficial things, including making the internet widely available throughout the country, improving infrastructure, bringing a greater measure of economic independence to the country for example by introducing manufacture for domestic sale and export of many kinds of goods, and attempting to open up the country more to the west without becoming a client state.
Most Syrians like and appreciate Asad and his wife, both of whom have strong connections to the West. Most Syrians would like to see what kind of leader he could be if not constrained by the Ba`thist old guard of his father.