Category Archives: Syria

Brit Tzedek Hits the Hill

Just returned from DC and an invigorating few days with Brit Tzedek v’Shalom‘s Advocacy Days on Capitol Hill. Anyone who supports a Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace policy should take heart in knowing that more than 150 activists from all over the country devoted themselves to in-depth briefings and advocacy training before fanning across the Hill to visit the offices of House reps and senators, encouraging our leaders to redouble their efforts toward a two-state solution. (If you will allow me a shameless brag, JRC provided ten participants – far and away the most from any one congregation and comprising the overwhelming majority of Illinois constituents. A sampling of JRC’ers above, from left to right: Michael Peshkin, moi, Jan Yourist and Mark Zivin.)

It currently is a time of tentative hope in the region. A fragile cease-fire has been brokered between Israel and Hamas, talks are continuing between Syria and Israel, and there are also encouraging signs of hope coming out of Lebanon. Sadly, the US is nowhere is be seen in these efforts. (The negotiations with Hamas, Syria and Lebanon were brokered by Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, respectively). On this issue, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted recently in Ha’aretz regarding negotiations with Syria:

I don’t think we will have negotiations before the end of this year without the contribution of the Americans, who, alone, can help bridge the gaps.

The plain truth is that no lasting negotiation between Israel and its neighbors has ever happened without an active mediating effort by the US. Sadly, the Annapolis talks are barely limping along – and despite Bush’s rosy prognostications, no one in his/her right mind could claim that anything resembling a negotiated settlement will emerge before time runs out on the current administration.

Our message to our national leaders was simple: Congress needs to urge our new administration to make peace between Israel and Palestine a real priority from day one. Time is running out – and we simply cannot afford another President who waits until the waning days of his presidency to become actively engaged in the peace process.

Our Congressional visits were encouraging – but the true test is yet to come. The latest polls tell us that 87% of American Jewry support a negotiated two-state solution. If this is true, then American Jews need to be unflagging in our efforts to encourage our leaders to take the specific and painful steps to make this a reality.

Indeed, there’s nothing novel about advocating for a two-state solution per se. What is needed now for leaders to be explicit on the steps needed to make this happen. A preliminary laundry list: the appointment of a special envoy for this exclusive purpose, an unequivocal demand for an end to Israeli settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and stronger Palestinian efforts to maintain security in the territories.

In the current political climate it will take real bravery for American politicians to take these kinds of public positions. But the strong majority of American Jews who are committed to a real and lasting peace must do what we can to give our leaders the cover to provide this kind of leadership. I’m enormously proud that Brit Tzedek is leading the charge in this effort.

Back on the Syria Track?

Could there be something in the air between Israel and Syria? We’ve receiving reports that the two countries have been back channeling with the help of Turkey for some time – and now Syrian President Assad has told a Qatar newspaper that Turkish involvement had yielded an Israeli offer to withdraw from the Golan Heights in return for a peace treaty.

The inevitable diplomatic two-step has already begun. Olmert’s office does not confirm or deny anything, and the report has already set off a political firestorm in Israeli political circles. But the momentum seems to be continuing. For his part, Assad is saying direct talks could not happen without US involvement – but that this could never happen until a new US President takes office. (No surprise there…)

I’ve blogged about Syrian – Israeli peace efforts before, but I’ll restate my own two cents for the record: I believe an accord would go a long way to stablize the region, improve the climate for Israeli-Palestinian talks, and further mitigate the influence of Iran. Is Assad serious? There’s only one way to find out. As I am fond of saying, where there’s talk, there’s hope.

Click here for an AP article on the latest developments.

A View from the Golan

picture-027.jpg

That’s me (left) and JRC’s cantor Howard Friedland posing against the Upper Galilee on Mitzpe Gadot, on the Golan Heights. We spent the day today largely touring the Golan – when we weren’t sampling the local beer and wine, we learned a great deal about the history of this region and spent some time in conversation with a resident of Katzrin, the “capital city” of the Golan Heights.

As expected, her presentation was fairly hard-core, describing her own story (she came to the Golan just two years after it was conquered by Israel in the Six Day War). though she offered extensive military, political, and economic arguments for why this region should never be given back to Syria in a potential peace agreement, I found most of these rationales to be relatively tepid: the military/security reality is very different now, and this region is of negligible economic benefit to Israel. When all was said and done, her most compelling argument for retaining the Golan was simply that it was home for her and 18,000 other Jewish residents.

The participants of the tour had an interesting post-mortem discussion afterwards and we were lucky to have a tour guide that was willing to express his own candid opinions as well. While it is certainly true that the issue of the Golan doesn’t get nearly as much press abroad as the Occupied Territories, it has long been the source of highly politicized debate within Israel (see for instance, this article from Ha’aretz from last February).

For my part, as I listened to the impassioned words of the Katzrin resident this morning, I could certainly sympathize with the trauma of the potential dislocation. But at the same time, I couldn’t help but think that this region was settled with the express purpose of creating “facts on the ground,” by new residents who knew full well that this area would continue to be disputed territory between Israel and Syria and a possible bargaining chip in a potential future peace deal.

I’m also very mindful of the larger geo-political implications of a possible peace deal with Syria – and how far it might go in stabilizing an increasingly unstable the Middle East. Can we trust Syria to be a true partner? Readers of this blog will already predict my answer to that one: we won’t know unless we try. In the meantime, are we willing to let 18,000 residents (less than half the capacity of Wrigley Field) keep us from finding out?

And that, my friends, is my rant du jour from the Golan. And now, lest I be accused of being too deadly serious while on my summer vacation, here’s another pic of me and Cantor Howard for your viewing pleasure. The obligatory Dead Sea “mud-shot” taken last Monday:

picture-010.jpg

The Tortured Dance of Diplomacy

syria.jpgThe journalistic bombshell of the week is Tuesday’s report in Ha’aretz that Israelis and Syrians formulated a series of “understandings for a peace agreement” in a series of secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006.

According to the article, the agreement would include:

- Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights to the Pre-1967 lines.

- A park to be set up for joint use as a buffer zone by Israelis and Syrians along the Sea of Galilee.

- Israel continued control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee.

- Syria’s agreement to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and to distance itself from Iran.

Inevitably, after the article hit, official government sources in Israel and Syria vehemently denied any such meetings ever took place. Yeah right…

Ah, the tortured dance of diplomacy! Still, in this increasingly polarized world of ours, it’s heartening to know there are still those those who are endeavoring to keep the channels of communication open. Thank God for low-level diplomats…

Here’s the full text of the document drafted during the secret talks. As always, check out Joshua Landis’ blog SyriaComment for ongoing analysis about this increasingly critical part of the Middle East world.

To Talk or Not to Talk?

syria.jpgWhat harm is there in talking? I’m sure experts on the fine art of diplomacy would offer all kinds of complicated answers to this question, but for this non-expert, the question still remains. What harm is there in just talking? What, exactly, is the down side?

At the moment, Israel’s government is debating this very issue vis a vis the question of talks with Syria. In recent statements, Syrian President Bashar Assad has stated he is ready to talk peace with Israel, and his overtures have given rise to a remarkable spectrum of reactions from Israeli leaders. As Israeli columnist Gershom Gorenberg wrote in the Jewish Forward earlier this month, these responses are particularly fascinating because they don’t break down predictably along Israeli political lines. (Those opposed to talks with Syria include Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the dovish Labor Party member Ephraim Sneh. Those advocating talks include Olmert’s own Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter, as well as the Likud Party’s former military Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya’alon).

Since I’m not a pundit, I won’t venture a guess as to whether or not Assad’s overtures are genuine. (For those interested in further analyses on this subject, I highly recommend Syria expert Joshua Landis’ blog SyriaComment). I will only ask this: what would be the harm in finding out?

The fact that this question is being publicly considered by Israel’s political establishment can only be seen as a positive and healthy sign. Alas, it seems to be a discussion our own government is incapable of having.

Indeed, the Bush administration has made no secret of its desire to isolate Syria internationally. Just last month, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice called on other nations to join the US in imposing sanctions on Syria, though she didn’t specify what exactly she had in mind. Our government has also made no secret of its goal to remake the Middle East in its image. Some suggest, alarmingly, that there is still a hope in the Bush administration for a regime change opportunity in Syria. (See SyriaComment on this point).

There are indications that Olmert’s unwillingness to respond to Assad stems primarily from US pressure. So this is what it’s come to: an ideologically-driven US administration might actively be discouraging Israel from even entertaining the possibility of talks with a potential partner in peace. These days, the prospect of the US serving as an authentic broker in the Mideast peace process feels little more than a bygone dream.

To those who believe that engaging with one’s enemies is simply appeasement, I would respond: where exactly has unilateralism gotten us? It is truly a sign of the times that none other than former Secretary of State James Baker recently remarked in an ABC interview: “I believe in talking to your enemies. In my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

Amen to that. Where there’s talk, there’s hope.