Even US in Iraq wins when a substantial Israeli/Syrian agreement is reached. Rice/Bush look like religious fanatic rather than politician.

Assad's support and cooperation with the Iranians may have something to do with it, as demonstrated by this recent al-Jazeera article:

Syria and Iran vow unity against US

Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his Iranian counterpart, have pledged to work together to confront US and Israeli "plots" in the Middle East.

Al-Assad arrived in Iran for a two day visit aimed at bolstering robust ties, his second trip to the Islamic republic since Ahmadinejad took power in August 2005.

Al-Assad said: "We should co-operate and work to make the public aware of the sinister aims of the United States and the Zionists."

The two leaders, accused by the US of destablising the region, warned against the dangers of disunity between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Lebanon and Iraq.

It seems hard to know how to evaluate what is going on with Syria, which, according to other things I've read, has made some noises that indicate a fear of being attacked itself (this is also said to be one reason Iran may want nuclear weapons, if indeed that is Iran's plan, rather than merely a domestic nuclear energy program as claimed).

One would think it might be worth it to try to entice Syria away from the Iranian sphere of influence, since right now Iran is the larger worry for the US. It's surprising that Israel would consider a dialog, while the US considers Syria beyond the pale. Whatever the truth of the matter about Assad, such a rigid stand by the US is probably counterproductive.

There is another article in Haaretz that suggests that Syria is building up military forces along it's common border with Israel. In this case, Defense Minister Peretz, in suggesting the avoidance of a verbal escalation of tensions, sounds like the only adult in the room. Perhaps Israel is considering a new effort at dialog in order to avoid even more serious problems from developing? Somehow that sounds out of character for Israel, so there must be more of a backstory here that isn't apparent yet.

One additional possibility: The return of the Golan Heights to Syria by Israel is one part of the Saudi I-P Peace Plan, which is receiving more interest since the Mecca Agreement. So perhaps this is a move on the part of the US to pre-emptively scuttle that part of the Saudi plan.

Edited later to add: A little further reading has turned up an article by Leon Hadar at RightWeb, that supports the suspicions I was beginning to develop in my last paragraph, above:

Now that the cost of the U.S. drive for power in the region is producing countervailing pressures at home and abroad, U.S. capacity and determination to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process has been weakened and has created a diplomatic vacuum in the Middle East that is gradually being filled by regional and outside players. The diplomatic role that Saudi Arabia has played in mediating the intra-Palestinian conflict parallels its discussions with Iran to stabilize Lebanon, its move to co-opt Syria into the Arab-Sunni camp, and its support for the Arab-Sunnis in Iraq.

Similarly, U.S. failures in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine have created disincentives for Washington to engage Iran and Syria, a step that it fears could be perceived as a sign of weakness. But both Syria and Israel share common interests in ending their military conflict that do not necessarily correspond to those of Washington. In fact, a deal between Damascus and Jerusalem could threaten the U.S. position by sidelining it to the diplomatic margins. That could also happen if Saudi Arabia increases its diplomatic role in the Middle East and moves in the direction of engaging Iran instead of confronting it.

From that perspective, when U.S. officials and pundits warn of the "chaos" that would follow a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, they are actually expressing their anxiety over their real nightmare scenario: a Middle East in which the United States is marginalized to a position of little power, with the other players in the region making deals with each other with little consideration of U.S. concerns. In other words, the formation of a regional security structure in the Persian Gulf that involves Saudi Arabia and Iran but not Washington, an organization that could facilitate cooperation between Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to stabilize Iraq, and foster moves toward a peace agreement between Israel and Syria.

Preventing such a scenario is probably the driving force behind the idea of attacking Iran's nuclear and military sites to help reassert the U.S. position in the Persian Gulf and other parts of the Middle East. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their neoconservative advisers are hoping that such a strike would weaken Iran's power and lessen the "threat" that a deal between the Saudis and Tehran could pose to U.S. hegemony. Similarly, the continuing conflict between Israel and Syria helps sustain the position of Washington as a powerful outsider whose services are required by the local players. It's the classic role of an imperial power pursuing a "divide and conquer" strategy.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Thanks for presenting possible US motivation for scuttling Israeli/Syrian peace talks. But as usual, the motivation as you describe it is based on petty power games and paranoid delusions. ALWAYS allow peace to come before US insecurities over geopolitical power positions and a selfish national desire to control and consume energy resources. The US had better get to work on alternative energy sources in any case, with peak oil and global warming staring everyone in the face.

Another brilliant move by moron Bush and his cronies.

Tom

troutsky,

US is "demanding"? Like they demanded Israel stop its settlement building?

So then Israel will proceed with [behind-the-US'-]back-channel negotiations with Syria anyway?  Sounds like good news to me.

Could someone provide any factual predicate for this notion raised by Luigi that, since assuming his Dad's chair, Assad has been more inclined to negotiate with Israel than the other way around?

I found these very secondary sources, and may or may not have the time to get deeper:

Assad wants to be taken seriously. He believes the sincere overtures he made to the United States and even Israel in his first few years in power were categorically rebuffed -- and in fact they were. After all, he was seen as being on the wrong side of history.

* * *

The Bush administration should not, however, react to the current situation by continuing to isolate and threaten Syria. Recognize the situation for what it is, because, like it or not, Bashar al-Assad is sticking around. Just because diplomacy is what he is ultimately searching for should not obviate the possibility of diplomacy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072601496.html
(2006)

and

Worried about being diplomatically isolated by Middle East peace talks, Syria has signaled its willingness to enter into negotiations with Israel for the second time in recent months.

* * *

In late April, faced with daily American accusations that it was harboring Iraqi officials and weapons, Syria used Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos of California to deliver a message to Israel proposing to reopen negotiations on all outstanding issues.

Then as now, Israel dismissed the move as a ploy by Damascus to avoid Washington’s ire over Syrian meddling in Iraq, its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and its support of terrorist organizations.

http://www.forward.com/articles/syria-makes-overture-over-negotiations/
(2003)

plus ca change . . . .

Thanks.

Haaretz has been bubbling with a lot of commentary that Israel should see if Assad is genuine in his desire to reach an agreement. Different arms of Israeli intelligence believe Assad wants a deal that will allow him to be weaned from Iran, and others view Assad as just interested in a peace process but not peace. Michale Oren, the historian and Captain in the IDF, has called for negotiations between Israel and Syria.

There were talks between Syrians and Israelis at an unofficial level that was known to the goverments and apparently to Cheney. These talks collapsed with the war with Hezbollah. An interesting question is whether Iran wanted to squelch the talks and urged Hezbollah to foment a crisis with Israel.

One thing this act of stupidity by the Bush Administration shows is those who go on and on about the power of AIPAC don't really know what they are talking about. It seems Israel is far more in the sway of the U.S. than the other way around.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Sorry but I couldn't link to those articles or columns you quote from. I just think that the notion that Assad has been rebuffed by Israel should not be accepted outright, because we also have credible information suggesting that in this case there is quite the bit of activity behind the scenes. In fact, if the reports in the Haaretz article cited by Crabapple below are correct, there have been secret, but high level negotiations going on between the parties.
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813817.html).

I've noticed you often make v. rigid statements but rarely back them up...?

It obviously doesn't occur to you that it might have been a certain pro-war, pro-american faction within Israel that started the Lebanon and Israel confrontation, by them not wanting negotiations, not wanting to compromise over the Golan Heights, rather than the fault being solely placed on Iran.

Also, I think most of us get it by now that AIPAC is not benign unless you can provide proof that shows otherwise.

I rather doubt that the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict was instigated by Iran. It is my understanding that Hezbollah/Israel border skirmishes had been taking place regularly for years, with casualties on both sides. The skirmish that precipitated the Israel/Lebonon conflict was nothing out of the ordinary and thus Israel's massive retaliation came as a surprise to most people. If I had to make any guess along these lines, it would be that the hardliners in Israel chose massive retaliation as a strategy to scuttle any further peace talks between Israel and Syria. But, even more likely, Israel could have been pressured by the US to respond with a major bombing campaign. This seems the most likely scenario to me, particularly given the US administration's reluctance to support a ceasefire at the time.

Surely you must be joking. How is it that AIPAC has all this power, a threat to use the Bush and Cheney daughters' blood for matzah? You mean AIPAC is keeping the U.S. from negotiating with Iran and Syria too or isn't that the U.S. polition?

This is remarkably scary. To think people here demand Hillary apologize.
Daniel A. Greenbaum

I have to say I'm of two minds about this.  On the one thing, it's probably true that Israel has little if anything to lose by engaging in exploratory talks to "test" the Syrians on their seriousness.  If nothing else, Israel should always be seen as the party willing to advance peace.

On the other hand, I just can't imagine the Syrians ever making a true peace.  It just isn't going to happen in the forseeable future. Syrians stopping their support for Hezbollah? Establishing full and complete diplomatic relations? Naive in the extreme.  So if you believe that the chances of peace are so small as to be negligible, then you can argue that talks with Syria are probably a net negative for Israel, given that Israel will get blamed when the talks inevitably fail and that the Arabs have a history of resorting to violence and terror when peace talks fail, even when it's their fault.

Here the example of the Palestinian peace talks in 2000-2001 is instructive.  There isn't a shadow of a doubt that the Palestinians were primarily to blame for the failure of those talks.  Everyone knows that the Saudi ambassador called Arafat's flat rejection of Ehud Barak's offer, without so much as a whiff of counteroffer, a "crime against the Palestinian people". But what was the result?  A spike in violence leading to the deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis and subsequent worldwide condemnation of Israel.  Given all that, was engaging in the peace efforts of 2000-2001 worthwhile in retrospect?  You can certainly argue that it turned out to be on the whole bad for Israel.

I probably come down instictively on the side of saying that Israel should always be willing to engage in peace talks.  But the last few years have made the counterarguments much more powerful.

I see no substance in your response, just the same old tired rebuttals, tit-for-tit, but with Israel ALWAYS being in the right.

I guess I shouldn't have bothered replying to your post.

If I didn't have the time to read UK, Canadian, European and even Israeli press, I might even believe your limited analysis when you continue to try and protect the stealth-like pro-Israeli right-wing pro-war lobbying in the US.

It's par for the course for Israel-haters to assume AIPAC maneuvers the Bush Administration like marionettes. Like all conspiracy theorists, they are not deterred by lack of evidence for this and in fact take the lack of evidence as proof of the conspiracy.

What is unfortunate is that this sort of drivel is now becoming standard among left wing types who can be eminently sensible on so many other things.

J. McCutchen

They also threw a curve and shut down the Rice Peace mission to Israel while Condi was in transit by having Bush call Olmert to tell him to "go slow" with PA unity govt (same stunt they pulled on Powell 3-4 times)

That is of a piece with the Syria ploy, the Surge and dispatch of two carrier groups to the Oil Gulf...

The game of course is to build a political predicate for an attack on Iran. Reports of Cheney's demise as the Shadow President are greatly exaggerated

The Road to Peace in the Middle East now lies thru Tehran

The hardliners within Israel may have indeed been eager to attack Lebanon as the first name for the war was "Operation Just Reward". But, US hardliners were also pushing for the war and wanted it expanded to include Syria. We were full partners in that escapade. So much so that Shmul Rosner and Aluf Ben report in Haaretz that Bush and Olmert refrained from talking to each other:

"Phone conversations between the prime minister and the president are not an everyday occurrence. During the Lebanon War the two kept their distance until the end of the fighting, so as to prevent rumors of either encouragement or pressure."

(AFAIK, that worked just fine as far as the MSM's reporting on the war. Didn't fool anyone else tho.)

IMO, these crudely blunt orders to Olmert et al indicate that Syria (and Lebanon/Hezbollah) could become a target in any wider military confrontation with Iran and it would be counterproductive for PR purposes to have Israel engaged in negotiations with a country they may be "defending themselves against" in the near future.

Brad, you seem to have missed Daniel's original comment, which was this:

One thing this act of stupidity by the Bush Administration shows is those who go on and on about the power of AIPAC don't really know what they are talking about. It seems Israel is far more in the sway of the U.S. than the other way around.

Much of what I subsequently said can only be understood in the context of this statement of Daniel's. I just can't see any way the efforts of the US to stop Syrian-Israeli talks can be seen as proving that AIPAC has no influence on US middle east policy, can you? (It would have been better if I had made it clear that I felt it was far more likely that AIPAC had caused the US call for no talks, than it was that the US action proved that AIPAC had little influence. It is sometimes difficult to make the nuances clear without writing a thesis.

I should also add that I am not a person who believes that either AIPAC or Israel controls US foreign policy, but they surely do have a lot of influence upon it. They are, of course, not the only ones with a dog in the middle east race. I would say the extent of AIPAC's impact upon this particular issue isn't really provable.

Perhaps you should take up the issue of presumed causality with Daniel, as it was he who brought up the issue of AIPAC. 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

I'm surprised you are questioning the supposed lack of evidence of those you presume are "Israel-haters" and "conspiracy theorists," but apparently missed the logical fallacy and lack of evidence in Daniel's comment, which started all this off.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

AIPAC syria

Enter the above search terms into your browser.

The first thing you see, click on it.

Do the same, again.

You get:

http://www.aipac.org/The_Issues/2378.asp

which says:

Iran and Syria have used past talks with the United States and Europeans as a time-buying exercise to continue their destructive policies and stave off serious consequences. Before any renewed dialogue with these countries, the United States must examine the history of previous efforts to engage the two regimes and clearly evaluate the potential ramifications for the United States of any new negotiations.

* * *

U.S. efforts to engage Tehran and Damascus could provide the regimes legitimacy and prestige at a time when they are using terrorism, murder and the threat of nuclear weapons to destabilize the region.

* * *

Engaging Syria while the investigation of its role in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and other prominent critics of Syria is still ongoing could undermine the democratic forces in Lebanon and relieve the international pressure on Damascus to end its destructive actions.

I looked in vain for any words suggesting negotiations, but found only words opposing them. This lying document is titled, "Proceed with Caution if Engaging Iran and Syria," but the subtext is obviously, "Here's Why the US Should not Talk With Syria or Iran."

These warmongering bastards need to be countered. When are American Jews going to form their much-ballyhooed counterpart to the UK's IJV?

www.ijv.org.uk

Wigmar1:

Thanks very much for your thorough reply (although this luddite remains unable to read your initial links your follow-up is indeed impressive, persuasive and very much appreciated). By the way, I did not mean to complicate matters by promoting any semantic drift. Things drift around here enough without my contribution.

I, too, am extremely disappointed in the apparent posture of our government to impede the negotiating process.

Thank you for your kind words.

The person in the administration behind this policy is Elliot Abrams, current king of the Feith-Wurmser-Netanyahu AIPAC crowd.
Note from the announcement below what AIPAC's priorities are for their big conference next month: war with Iran.
Olmert may want peace with Syria but that would mess up AIPAC's goal of achieving war with Syria's ally, Iran.
The crowd who gave us the Iraq war are getting ready to strike again. Target:Iran. And, amazingly enough, they don't even care if their beloved Israel is consumed in the process.

PS: The guys who haven't RSVP'd yet will be there. Few dare stay away.

February 21, 2007
Urge Members of Congress to Attend the 2007 AIPAC Policy Conference Gala Banquet

As the terrorist group Hamas prepares to form a unity government with its rival Fatah and Iran continues its march toward developing nuclear weapons, this is a critical moment for the U.S.-Israel relationship. AIPAC's Policy Conference Gala Banquet is an excellent opportunity for members of Congress to show solidarity with the people of Israel and demonstrate their commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Monday evening's AIPAC Gala Banquet traditionally attracts half the Senate, a third of the House of Representatives and scores of administration officials, diplomats and student government presidents from around the nation. This year's honored guests will include the two top members of the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

AIPAC Gala Banquet:

*
DATE: Monday, March 12, 2007
*
TIME: National Leadership Reception at 6:00 p.m.; Banquet at 7:30 p.m.
*
PLACE: The Washington Convention Center, 801 Mount Vernon Place, NW, Washington DC 20001
*
RSVP: Natalie Lascar at (202) 639-6931 or nlascar@aipac.org

ACTION

Please call members of the House and Senate who have not RSVP'd (see list below) and urge them to attend the 2007 AIPAC Policy Conference Gala Banquet. Members of the House can be reached through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 225-3121; Senators at (202) 224-3121. To RSVP, members should contact Natalie Lascar at (202) 639-6931 or nlascar@aipac.org.

Members who have not rsvp'd

302 House Members have NOT RSVP'd

Alabama: Aderholt, Bonner, Cramer, Davis, Everett

Alaska: Young

Arizona: Flake, Franks, Giffords, Grijalva, Pastor, Renzi, Shadegg

Arkansas: Berry, Boozman, Ross, Snyder

California: Baca, Becerra, Bilbray, Bono, Calvert, Capps, Cardoza, Doolittle, Dreier, Eshoo, Farr, Gallegly, Harman, Herger, Issa, Lantos, Lee, Lofgren, Lungren, McCarthy, McKeon, McNerney, George Miller, Napolitano, Pelosi, Radanovich, Rohrabacher, Roybal-Allard, Sanchez, Sherman, Stark, Tauscher, Waters, Waxman, Woolsey

Colorado: Lamborn, Perlmutter, Salazar

Connecticut: Courtney, DeLauro, Larson, Murphy, Shays

District of Columbia: Norton

Florida: Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Crenshaw, Mario Diaz-Balart, Hastings, Keller, Klein, Mack, Mahoney, Meek, Mica, Miller, Putnam, Young

Georgia: Bishop, Deal, Gingrey, Kingston, Linder, Westmoreland

Hawaii: Abercrombie, Hirono

Illinois: Biggert, Costello, Emanuel, Gutierrez, Hare, Hastert, Johnson, Manzullo, Roskam, Rush, Schakowsky, Shimkus, Weller

Indiana: Burton, Buyer, Carson, Donnelly, Hill, Visclosky

Iowa: Boswell, Braley, King, Latham

Kansas: Boyda, Moran, Tiahrt

Kentucky: Chandler, Davis, Lewis, Rogers, Whitfield

Louisiana: Boustany, Jefferson, Jindal, McCrery, Melancon

Maine: Allen

Maryland: Bartlett, Gilchrest, Van Hollen, Wynn

Massachusetts: Capuano, Delahunt, Frank, Lynch, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Neal, Olver

Michigan: Camp, Conyers, Dingell, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Knollenberg, McCotter, Rogers

Minnesota: Ellison, Kline, McCollum, Peterson, Ramstad, Walz

Mississippi: Pickering, Taylor, Thompson, Wicker

Missouri: Akin, Blunt, Carnahan, Emerson, Graves, Hulshot

Montana: Rehberg

Nebraska: Fortenberry

Nevada: Heller, Porter

New Hampshire: Shea-Porter

New Jersey: Andrews, Frelinghuysen, Garrett, Holt, LoBiondo, Pascrell, Payne, Saxton, Smith

New Mexico: Pearce, Udall, Wilson

New York: Arcuri, Clarke, Fossella, Gillibrand, Hall, Hinchey, Israel, King, Kuhl, Lowey, Maloney, McCarthy, McHugh, McNulty, Meeks, Nadler, Serrano, Slaughter, Velasquez, Walsh, Weiner

North Carolina: Butterfield, Etheridge, Foxx, Hayes, Jones, McHenry, McIntyre, Miller, Myrick, Price

North Dakota: Pomeroy

Ohio: Gilmor, Hobson, Kaptur, Kucinich, LaTourette, Pryce, Ryan, Sutton, Tiberi, Tubbs Jones, Turner, Wilson

Oklahoma: Boren, Fallin, Lucas, Sullivan

Oregon: DeFazio, Hooley, Walden, Wu

Pennsylvania: Altmire, Brady, Dent, English, Fattah, Holden, Kanjorski, Murtha, Peterson, Pitts, Sestak, Shuster

Rhode Island: Kennedy, Langevin

South Carolina: Barrett, Brown, Clyburn, Inglis, Spratt, Wilson

South Dakota: Herseth

Tennessee: Blackburn, Cooper, Duncan, Gordon, Tanner, Wamp

Texas: Brady, Burgess, Conaway, Cuellar, Doggett, Edwards, Hall, Hensarling, Hinojosa, Jackson-Lee, Sam Johnson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, McCaul, Neugebauer, Ortiz, Paul, Poe, Reyes, Rodriguez, Smith, Thornberry

Utah: Bishop, Matheson

Vermont: Welch

Virginia: Boucher, Cantor, Tom Davis, Drake, Goode, Goodlatte, Scott, Wolf

Washington: Baird, Dicks, Hastings, Larsen, Reichert, Smith

West Virginia: Mollohan, Moore Capito, Rahall

Wisconsin: Baldwin, Kagen, Kind, Moore, Obey, Petri, Ryan

Wyoming: Cubin

57 Senators have NOT RSVP'd

Alabama: Sessions

Alaska: Stevens

California: Boxer

Connecticut: Dodd, Lieberman

Delaware: Biden, Carper

Hawaii: Akaka

Illinois: Durbin, Obama

Indiana: Bayh, Lugar

Iowa: Harkin

Kansas: Brownback

Kentucky: McConnell

Louisiana: Landrieu, Vitter

Maine: Snowe

Maryland: Cardin, Mikulski

Massachusetts: Kerry

Michigan: Levin, Stabenow

Minnesota: Bingaman, Klobuchar

Mississippi: Lott

Missouri: McCaskill

Nebraska: Nelson

Nevada: Ensign, Reid

New Hampshire: Gregg, Sununu

New Jersey: Lautenberg, Menendez

New York: Clinton, Schumer

North Dakota: Conrad, Dorgan

Ohio: Brown

Oklahoma: Inhofe

Oregon: Smith, Wyden

Pennsylvania: Casey, Specter

Rhode Island: Reed

South Carolina: DeMint, Graham

South Dakota: Johnson

Vermont: Leahy, Sanders

Virginia: Webb

Washington: Cantwell

West Virginia: Byrd, Rockefeller

Wisconsin: Feingold, Kohl

Wyoming: Thomas

All this proves is that your ignorance on this issue is simply boundless.

Like all Israel haters you refuse to confront the evidence in front of your face. You're willing to assign completely pure and uncynical motives to the Syrians. They really want peace! The fact they put out feelers for talks is all the evidence I need!

The evidence suggests otherwise. If the Syrians were truly interested in peace (as opposed to a false peace designed for propaganda purposes so they can get the Golan Heights back) don't you think they'd make some elementary gestures like stopping supplying Hezbollah with weapons. Stopping being a staging ground for Iranian terrorism. Stopping blatantly disgusting anti-Semitic programs from airing on their state-controlled media. You know, that sort of thing?

Don't you think there would have been some evidence from the last time Israel and Syria negotiated? Back in the Clinton Administration, the US engaged in a herculean effort to get the Syrians to play ball. Israel was prepared to do a deal back then. But the talks collapsed due to Syrian intransigence. And of course not once during those negotiations did anyone from Syria address Israelis (or anyone else for that matter) and say they wanted peace, they way Anwar Sadat did 30 years ago.

And yet if Israel agreed to talks, but maintained a high degree of wariness, it'd be "bad faith".

That level of delusion is usually reserved for people like Dick Cheney. Congratulations on the marvellous company you keep.

Yes, it is so absolutely absurd to ask questions. In the future I will work really, really hard to stay more on message and I will work even harder to purge myself of that healthy skepticism I seem to have about the benevolent intentions and yearning for peace that characterize the good and decent Alawaite minority leadership in Syria.

We hopefully agree on one thing, and that is that Wigmar1 answered my query with grace, and dignity, and with patience and respect. And that, my friend, is an agreement we can walk away with together.

On the other hand, I am sorry to have wasted your time with my absurd query Luigi.

Zionista: Now that you've picked yourself up off the floor, upon noticing that I've uprated your comment, let me explain why I did so.

It's because of your chicken-egg comment, which the more I thought about it, makes a lot of sense - it's a good insight. I might refine the idea a bit more to liken the relationship between AIPAC, Israel and the US to a cybernetic feedback loop, though not necessarily one that operates in an efficient way; and in fact, just the opposite, the effect is probably primarily entropic.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Howard, I absolutely agree that negotiations must take into account and adapt to the negotiating postures of those who sit across the table (one thing I can say with certainty after spending my share of long nights over the past 20 years on the labor union side of the bargaining table). And, given the multi-dimensional nature of what constitutes bargaining, I am really skepical about whether any of us really know what is going on between Israel and Syria at the present time.

Notwithsanding the diversion caused by my query above, and without deviating from the disturbing role apparently being played by our government as reflected in the Haaretz article that is the source of MJ's post, my humble beilef is that a settlement involving the return of the Golan Heights will happen when the right leadership in Israel can effect what is the obvious solution, and when Syrian allusions to peace are put to the test at the bargaining table.

The Heights will be returned when the right Israeli leader can convince Israelis that there no longer remains any genuine concern for the type of constant threat posed by the Syrians during the 19 years that they terrorized the Israeli population from the Heights around the Kinneret and northwards to the Hula Valley and overall Upper Galilee. The Heights will not be returned by convincing the Israeli population that the truly heroic seizure of this territory by the Israelis in 1967 was something other than bona fide and legitimate self-defense; Israelis do not believe, and rightfully so, that their heroic victories on the Heights were some sort of colonialist land-grab.

It is also necessary to ask whether Syria will be able to deal with Israel beyond its lauded allusions to peace, and whether it will genuinely sit down and agree, as Sadat and then Jordan's King Hussein did, to recognize its neighbor Israel and its right to live within secure borders. Perhaps Assad will be comforted by the thirty years of peace between Egypt and Israel and the fledgling but peaceful interactions between Israel and Jordan.

Howard, you're the military expert. I'm not sure if you've been to the Heights but I'm sure you're familiar with the landscape at least in a general sense. The Heights brush right up against the Kinneret in the South and then northward they overlook the Hula Valley and beyond and make the population centers below appear to be quite vulnerable. Does that geographic reality matter so much in the modern age of warfare, i.e. if there were a settlement that did not provide for complete demilitirazation of the Heights, would the Israelis below be protected?

The rumoured recent talks between representatives from both countries in Europe contemplated turning the Heights into demilitarizd parkland. Sounds right to me.

Thanks Howard for your excellent analysis, as usual. There are Israelis living on the Heights and there certainly is Israeli commerce on the Heights (great winery, Gamla, in the opinion of this expert who can now distinguish between wine that is white and wine that is red).

To my knowledge, what I believe is your implicit assumption is correct: that Israeli "settlers" on the Golan Heights do not pose the types of political problems incidental to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the former settlements unilaterally withdrawn from by Israel in Gaza.

On the other hand, unlike the feelings of much of the Israeli population about the festering embarassment and the shame of the occupation of the West Bank, IMHO there is not much of that oft-cited Jewish guilt about the seizure of the Golan Heights from the aggressor and still hostile Syria.

Of course, as a counterweight, constant states of war become fatiguing. I'm tired over here and I don't need to know where the nearest bomb shelter is.

On the other hand, unlike the feelings of much of the Israeli population about the festering embarassment and the shame of the occupation of the West Bank, IMHO there is not much of that oft-cited Jewish guilt about the seizure of the Golan Heights from the aggressor and still hostile Syria.

God what a biased quote or what!

Israel occupies the land, in the West Bank, Gaza(still is not free), AND the Golan Heights, screws international opinion and law, and continues to put settlers on there. Refuses to negotiate or compensate Syria when they ask for talks, as the occupied Golan Heights provides about 1/3rd of Israel water, and then you have the gall to say the agressors are Syria...? It would funny if it was't sooo sad.

And on a lighter side:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17294091

I had not been aware of the water issue. Nevertheless, there is a potential danger of large-scale Syrian attack across the Heights, as it has happened before. Perhaps the Syrians may recognize that they were badly beaten each time they tried, although at heavy cost to the Israelis.

There is no danger that large-scale military forces will boil out of the West Bank or Gaza. The settlements in those two areas do not contribute to security in the same way as does an observation post or artillery installation on the Heights.

So, much as I disapprove of the recent way Israel has used its military, and much as I disapprove of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, I see much more security concerns with the Golan Heights. Those concerns may not be insuperable, especially if the heights proper are demilitarized but automated or third-party observers protect both sides against surprise movements of large bodies of troops. If the missile defense technology improves, that also may be a stabilizing influence.

One can only hope that the younger Assad, trained as an opthalmologist, has greater insight into vision than his father.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard. Your view of the dangers posed by Syria aren't necessarily shared by Israeli analysts.

The following from one of a group of Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies analyses post summer war:

"In an attack meant to obstruct the smuggling of arms to Hizbollah, the air force killed several dozen Syrian farmers. It is easy to imagine what Israel would have done in a similar situation: it would have launched a heavy bombardment against the aggressor. Syria, which knows Israel well and understands the true balance of deterrence between them, opted for restraint. However, Bashar Asad, who was driven out of Lebanon a few months earlier, found a loophole in the war that he may be able to use to remove his state from the list of the West's most detested countries. He may even be able to initiate a process that could ultimately help him realize his father's dream and regain the Golan Heights through negotiations with Israel. It is not clear if Asad either understands the opportunity he has or is able to seize it. However, it is clear that had he mobilized his army, even for a limited response, he would have come out of the war as a big loser, and may even have been ousted as president."

snip]

"Israel turned a localized incident into a war in order to consolidate its deterrence. The political and military leadership did not recognize that with an organization like Hizbollah, there has never been, will not be, and cannot be any deterrence - as it is not a state that takes responsibility and it does not have a backbone that can be crushed. On the other hand, even failing on the land-based battlefield and in creating the image of victory did not essentially change the deterrence towards Syria: Bashar Asad may engage in highbrow talk, but out of a sense of weakness and recognition of Israeli supremacy, he decided not to respond to the damage inflicted on his citizens and sovereignty.

The conclusion that Asad will draw from the fighting in Lebanon relates to his perception of defense: it should be more similar to that of Hizbollah, be entrenched on the ground, and create dispersed low profile positions with as few as possible heavy control facilities that can be struck and incapacitated. On the other hand, he should know that an attack on Israel will end in failure. If Syrian tanks move from their bases towards the border, it is highly unlikely that they will get there."
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v9n3p2Shelah.html

Take note of the last sentence. The implication is clear that Israel will bomb Syria's tanks if they begin to move to their own border. BTW, Israel has just recently been conducting wargames in the Golan:

".......for the first time in six-and-a-half years, the IDF conducted a full-brigade drill this week - the kind of exercises that give troops the hands-on experience they need to be optimally prepared the next time they face Israel's enemies on the battlefield.

For the past several weeks, regular army units and battalions from the Paratroopers Brigades have been conducting smaller-scale exercises in preparation for this week's "war games," which included tanks, helicopters, four fighting battalions and live ammunition.

The final drill took place on the Golan Heights yesterday, in full view of Syrian outposts.

It was a well-organized exercise, and platoon commanders reported that their soldiers did even better than they'd expected."
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/108392.aspx

Unfortunately, Israel's beseiged Defense Minister Peretz was photographed observing the Golan manuevers through a pair of binoculars with lens caps firmly in place.

I'm not sure how much the hapless Peretz had to do with the actual operations during the summer war. Dan Halutz made all (or most of) the decisions, refused to let any of his commanders voice any distaff opinions during defense meetings with the politicals and investigated his own officer corps for talking with the media without his permission.

It's the Israeli intrasingence causing their reluctance to enter into negotiations, not the other way around. Israeli conditions for engaging in talks is predicated on the perceived weakness of their enemies ie they don't believe in engaging with the weak, believing that further weakening said party will result in a virtual capitulation given enough time and pressure.

They consider Assad a far weaker leader than his father and are not entirely convinced that a "democratic" regime change would be to their benefit.

The whole assumption behind this analysis is that it is ISRAEL who need to adapt to SYRIAN culture.  Never the other way around.  It's as if we assume that the Syrians will need to be dragged kicking and screaming to make concessions and when they do we can consider the negotiation a "success".

I think history shows that in order for there to be a true peace (as opposed to a ceasefire or armistice), both parties have to WANT peace.  Right now there is a lot of evidence that the Syrians want their land back.  Not a lot of evidence they want peace.  Thus Israel is right to be wary of any land-for-peace arrangement without some real evidence that the peace part is not going to get short shrift.  That's why the Sadat example is so important.  That's why in the early days of the Oslo process Arafat's speeches talking about a desire for peace lured Israel into a serious negotiation.  The question is, would Syrian peace gestures be like Sadat's - indications of a serious intent - or like Arafat's - totally disingenuous.