American and Israeli Interests Diverge on Talking to Syria
While we're on provocative matters, let's talk about Robert Satloff, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Kenneth Pollack, of Brookings's Saban Center, holding forth on television about Syria. Satloff all but dismisses the idea of engaging Syria. Pollack says (with his usual indirection), There will be a high price for the U.S. to pay.
Syria may finally be the Elian Gonzalez moment I've been waiting for on the Israel lobby—the moment when U.S. interests and Israeli interests part sharply, for all to see. It is now a commonplace to hear Republican congressmen saying We should talk to Syria. I.e., any idiot knows we should be talking to Syria, to try and save lives in Iraq.
It may not be in Israel's interest to talk to Syria. That is, Israel has time and again declined Syria's overtures in the last few years. For whatever reason, foolish arrogant or visionary, because they don't want to part with the Golan, or think they have pulverized Hezbollah, Israel's leaders don't want to talk to Syria. Their call.
This is a good line in the sand: Israel doesn't want to talk to Syria, the U.S. maybe does. Where do you stand, Ken Pollack, of the Saban Center (a thinktank funded by an Israeli)? And Satloff of WINEP, hirer of Israeli generals? Are Israeli and American interests always congruent? Now that's a good question for public broadcasting.
Excuse me little Phil but Syria is simply an extension of Iran and Assad junior is a weak leader who is an Alawite, a monority sect in Syria. I know that your a brilliant mind reader but what peace overtures are you talking about and how exactly can they help us in Iraq and why would they want to. Personally though I would love to see them take over Lebonon. Why not. Oh, and one last thing little Phil. Let Israel give up the Golan heights when you, Lester, Gene, and the rest of the Hasrallah/Hamas cheering sections move yourself, wives, children, and pets to the foot of the Golan heights, within artillery range. Last but not least if I was Olmert I'd offer to fly to Damascus right now and I'd invite Assad and his mafia to Jerusalem. But all you get out of Syria is obtuse Arabic proverbs
Pearlman,
Syria has in the last couple of years said repeatedly it is ready to start peace nogotiations with Israel. You should be reading Israeli newspapers, you might learn a few actual facts that way!
But Israel will not give up the Golan Heights (a violation of international law and multiple UN resolutions on the matter, research it). So no peace talks.
Syria is a major player in the region and it is in the US interest to draw it away from Iranian influence. As a matter of fact, Syria was extremely helpful with info it was providing on Al Qaeda until neo-cons in the Bush administration imposed their hard line on Syria because it wouldn't be in Israel's interest to have the US and Syria helping each other.
But you and most Americans wouldn't know that because you won't read about it in the New York Times or hear it from Fox News.
Try the New Yorker instead:
[ THE SYRIAN BET
Did the Bush Administration burn a useful source on Al Qaeda?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2003-07-28
Posted 2003-07-18 ]
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030728fa_fact
Alan:
Seymour Hersh peaked with My Lai and makes Phil Weiss look like Jabotinsky. The Golan Heights have now been under Israeli sovreignty longer than Syrian and none of the borders in that area have a long history. Last but not least. You don't have to be Patton or Macarthur to see that the Golan is an extremely vital area. It can't be given up on a wing and a prayer. That has been Israel's quietest border and its because they can hit Damascus with artillery and have listening posts from the area. Would you endanger your countries security without ironclad guarantees. Tell me where they are and also tell me where Syria has made concrete proposals, in concise fashion. Not some Arabic proverbs or offers out of the souk
Pearlman,
Nice to see you finally engaging in civil debate.
You are misreading the problem. The problem for Israel is not any security guarantees Syria or anyone else for that matter could ever provide. Syria's army is a dwarf, a joke compared to the giant that is the IDF. The IDF and its amazing power is the security guarantee of Israel, combined with the US' logistical and financial help.
The problem for Israel and the US is the elements within Israel and in the American Jewish community who believe in Eretz Israel and not in peace. The same people who were extremely unhappy that Jimmy Carter succeeded in putting enough pressure for the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. Why? Because that meant giving back the Sinai.
It is not a matter of security guarantees. It is a matter of territorial greediness, religious extremism and incredible shortsightedness.
Alan:
Again I reiterate, the IDF relies on reserves. You put the Syrian military up on the Golan with short range missiles, backed by Iran, and it's a formidable threat. Hezbollah is still active to say the least and that puts the Israeli panhandle in extremet peril. Not to mention the water situation. Would you give that up on the word of Assad or the rest of his crew.It would be short sighted to give it up for anything less than real peace and that is omething that Syria is most assuredly NOT offering. Also, Jimmy Carter takes way too much credit for the camp david accords. The crdit for that goes to the ONLY Arab leader that has streched his hand out to the Israeli people in peace, Sadat and yes, has much has it may pain you and the rest of your compatriots, Menachem Begin. But has far has the US is concerned, sure send Condy Rice to Damascus to lick the boots of the mafia there. And while your at it send Baker, Scowcroft and the rest of that crew. Personally I was never a fan of Warren Christopher going to Syria and beging but what the hell. Let them move on Lebanon, Jordan, and stomp on the Kurds. All in the name of realism I guess
Syria has a shitty history of oppression, a Shiite ruling over a Sunni majority, a shitty economy, and a shitty military. It's in the US's interest to ally with them???
one more thing, Weiss is a dipshit.
I saw that dude satloff on CSPAN. he was clearly not happy with what was being said. it was funny to watch. I was going to find his email and harass him but then I read one of his essays about "arab heroes of the holocaust" that was actually sort of interesting and forgot.
Your an interesting guy lester, a real intellectual giant
There are even rumblings of Israel willing to be a peace partner but I am at a loss to what their ultimate agenda is. So often they're like Lucy with the football, ready to pull it back at just the right moment.
Lance:
And the Arabs are a bunch of Ghandi types whose word can be trusted. Would you trust Hamas with your life and the lives of your family. Where is the Arab peace party, negotiators who have power. Who are they? The world wonders
Pearlman
Try the Arab League's proposal: Israel returns to the 1967 borders and gets recognised by ALL Arab League members with diplomatic relations established and peace in the region achieved. This proposal was repeated a few weeks ago and Hamas accepted it too!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/12/world/main2174764.shtml
Israel is not interested.
So quit your ridiculous rhetoric, the world actually wonders where the peace party in Israel is.
Don't you have any shame?
Alan:
Don't try to pull your Joseph Welch imitation because it's bullshit. You know full well that there is a large and vibrant left wing in Israel. Their problem is that rockets keep coming over and buses keep exploding. The Arab leage proposal was not for full peace, it reads has a nonbelligerency pact, does not cover the so-called right of return and does not cover Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and was not even put to a vote by the entire membership. Again, name me a moderate Arab with a reasonable proposal who has the power to make it stick, they don't exist. And when Mubarak, and Abdullah are out they're going to throw the treaties in the waste basket. They have precedent for this in the koran. You want the peace camp to come to power in Israel, act like human beings instead of homicidal maniacs who are less a people than a giant death cult
This is excellent: Bill Pearlman engaging in genuine debate, instead of just calling names. Please keep it up. Joseph
Pearlman,
1) First of all, the Arab League has 22 member states! And yes, it is for full peace. If peace is achieved after negotiations, obviously!
I also have to inform you that Iran is not an Arab country.
2) The right of return and other difficult issues are what negotiations are for! You probably don't understand how diplomacy and negotiations work I'm afraid. Most proposals are just starting points in all peace negotiations. It's a start. You can't expect the Palestinians to come to the table having already accepted all of Israel's demands!
Same goes with Hamas "not" recognizing Israel. It already did so in essence when it accepted the Arab League proposal. Besides, the extremists will have to be dealt with and tempered by BOTH sides.
3) The argument that any treaty might be broken is a straw man. That a treaty might be broken or not in the future was never a reason not to make peace. Unless of course a nation thought it was powerful enough to seek expansion with "perpetual war".
4) Buses are not exploding anymore because Hamas announced and kept its word it would refrain from such actions for now, since about 18 months ago. It is not because of the wall, and Israeli security experts recognize that. Again, you need to read more of Israeli newspapers. Don
Arab League member states:
Algeria
Bahrain
Comoros
Djibouti
Egypt
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/1550797.stm
Normalization of diplomatic relations with all these countries would seem to be a good incentive to enter negotiations I think.
Mr. Pearlman,
Considering just how many ways the Israelis use their power specifically to foment strife amongst its Arab neighbors, it's amazing there are any Arabs/Muslims still willing to work towards a peaceful resolution. Just as all the neo-cons got everything wrong with their predictions on the GWOT, the Zionists ignored all indications that their colonialist excursion would bring decade after decade of untold death, destruction and suffering. An Arab leader who should be hailed as truly insightful and ahead of the curve on this matter would be King Abdullah who wrote this in 1947 in The American Magazine at a time when apparently US citizens could get a more thoughtful and balanced account of the tension brewing.
Please read the whole thing as it is incredibly moving. Alfred Lilienthal is an amazing figure himself in his tireless efforts to foster peaceful coexistence in the region; not the hateful and paranoid ravings of those who helped bring about the conflict in the first place. If the Jewish leadership at the time had half as much integrity as either of these two men, the region would already be in the midst of a fair and just peace.
http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/arabsjews.htm
"As the Arabs see the Jews"
His Majesty ,King Abdullah
The American Magazine
November, 1947
SUMMARY
This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein's grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
I find it remarkable that Uri Avnery said this, on Nov 25 (near the end):
"The Bush administration forbids our government to talk with the Syrians. They want to talk with them themselves, when the time comes. Quite possibly, they will then sell them the Golan in return for Syrian help in Iraq. If so, should we not hurry and 'sell' them the Golan (which belongs to them anyhow) for a better price for ourselves?"
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1164499249
Lance Thruster, ( interesting screen name by the way, speaks to certain psychological issues I think ) First of all Alfred Lilienthal was on the Saudi payroll, was a piece of shit and the Philip Weiss of his time. King Abdullah was a good man but guess what/ You left out a certain fact. He was guned down by his fellow Arabs outside of the Dome of the Rock. No jews were there though because they were bared from the city and the Jewish holy places were desecrated. Not the case today.
Mr. Pearlman,
I am glad my nick is somehow helping you towards resolving some of your psychological issues. I had just heard today from a Arab co-worker that he was most likely on the CIA payroll. I am not sure what role he was playing as his writings and foundations seem to be working diligently for peace and justice. To be compared to Mr. Weiss and vice-versa is not a slam in any way.
As far as the King goes, I did not "leave out" a certain fact except for not being aware of it. His untimely death has no bearing on his words other than further proving him right about the turmoil that the Zionist takeover has engendered.
It's good to know that the Israelis have secured the "Holy Places" as they go about their business of being blind to almost anything having to do with ethics, morality, justice, equality, or indeed, common understandings of "holiness."
Pearlman,
You seem to forget the thousands of fanatics camping outside of Rabin's house chanting death chants and his subsequent assassination.
According to posters on the Birthright thread who had their children visit Israel, he is to this day characterized by some responsible for the tour as a "bad Jew":
["It was so bad that on his trip, the group leader apologized for taking the kids to the spot where Rabin was assassinated, saying Rabin was a bad Jew."
Posted by: Jeff Cohen | November 27, 2006 11:49 PM ]
And we all know what happened to Anwar Sadat as well. This is what we are dealing with here, we have to save both sides from the fanatics and you, Pearlman, you are a part of the problem and not a part of its solution.
Mr. Pearlman,
Do you have any links or other resource info on your comments linking Dr. Lilienthal to the Saudis? An Arab friend said he worked for the CIA instead/as well. Whether or not either of these allegations are true, I am coming up empty so far in trying to get additional info/confirmation.
I actually clarified it with him,and it was King Abdullah he said was thought to be on the CIA payroll. As I said, that tends to not have any bearing on the words he wrote that I referenced. You are Johnny-on-the-spot an so many other threads and posts here, I am curious why you have not yet responded to mine (provided that you've seen it yet).