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.
