Assad’s “Full Reciprocity”
- 05.09.2008 - 12:27 PMThis week’s L’Espresso, one the most influential weekly publications in Italy, features an exclusive interview with Syrian dictator Bashar el Assad. Even as the interviewer makes his best effort to let Assad off the hook on just about every issue, Assad still manages to dismiss the assumption, made by many Westerners, that a wedge can be driven between Iran and Syria. Asked if Syria would renounce its alliance with Iran and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas in exchange for peace with Israel, Assad said that
It would be an absurd demand and there would be no more peace. How would Israel react if we demanded it breaks its relations with the United States? Negotiations must develop with regard to full reciprocity. Syria remains firmly persuaded that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. For the simple reason that they do not kill civilians. They are movements that defend their own land. As for Iran, the answer is even more obvious. It is our old ally, there is no reason to turn our back to them.
Assad could not be clearer. In exchange for the Golan Heights, Israel would obtain a peace treaty that would add little to the present state of relations with Syria, without reducing the weight and clout of Iran and its proxies all around it. Not a deal worth pursuing.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 9th, 2008 at 1:26 PM
so if israel gives the golan in exchange for peace with syria, the effect will be bringing an unhindered and effectively welcome iran right up to israel’s border. any such “peace” will be worthless because it will not include the main player (iran), who can change it’s mind about anything at anytime via the terrorist proxies or, if need be, syria itself. nice.
May 9th, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Israel’s original mistake was its failure to openly annex the Golan Heights and proclaim that it would henceforth annex any strategic land it was forced to conquer to prevent persistent rocket attacks. Why would Israel even discuss the possibility of putting itself under the guns of the Syrians? The only tried and true formula for national survival is to define and jealously mainain your borders so as to put your enemies at a perpetual disadvantage.
May 9th, 2008 at 4:08 PM
haha take that olmert
May 9th, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Israel passed a Golan law in 1981 that was tantamount to annexation but did not use that word.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Bob Miller - Thanks for that information re “Israel passed a Golan law in 1981 that was tantamount to annexation but did not use that word.”
Good for Israel, although I suspect it would have been better to to use the word and thus rub Assad’s father’s nose in it since that would have caused him loss of face with his people.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:26 PM
The present Golan Law has intentionally been left textually “loose” and is given to varying interpretations, so much so, that depending on one’s political outlook [and aspirations] and also on how things pan out with Syria, it can be seen as justifying a view which says it’s been fully annexed by Israel, to one which promises full exchange of the Golan Heights in exchange for a not very well delineated either, undertakings and degree of reciprocity which Syria would have to provide, for its return.
Neither “definition” or “understanding” of what’s contained in the 1981 Golan LAw provides the Israeli Electorate nor, indeed, the residents of Katzrin, sufficient information, nor certainty, nor a satisfactory statement of Israeli government intentions, regarding their future.
Think Gush Katiff with a mountain!
Sully [post#2]
It’s still not too late to do so now, you know.