Rime Allaf | Chatham House United Kingdom
June 7th, 2007

Re: ‘Syria's Occupied Golan Heights

The time has come to rain on the love parade. Observing a 40th anniversary not of peace, but of war, reminds us that there is clearly one party which is a big winner and another a big loser, a victor and a victim, an aggressor and an aggressed. A wrong, and a right. A strong warmonger, and a weak prey. Israel, and Arabs.

But judging from the commemorations, it would be easy for a newly landed Martian to think it was actually the other way around, given the unbelievable propensity, spreading like a virus, to convince, reassure, persuade, sweet-talk and beseech Israel to give back some land so that we could please have some peace. In fact, with every so-called peace initiative, Israel??s victims are left asking for less and less.

Every statement tackling the Arab-Israeli conflict seems to begin, as if by default, with a disclaimer pledging recognition of Israel??s ??right to exist,? a denunciation of ??terrorism? and a sincere wish for ??all concerned parties? to live ??side by side? in peace. And that??s not even getting into the notion of a ??viable? Palestinian state (not one, interestingly, which has the ??right to exist?) which is supposed to see the light through the ??painful concessions? that peace-loving Israel is willing to make in order for an overwhelmed IDF to be relieved of the burden of having to kill more people in self-defense, to grab more land in self-defense, and to build more ghettos in self-defense.

Only after the disclaimer can the arguments for Israel to give ??up? (and not back) land begin, and can ??civilized? lines of reasoning be presented to comfort Israelis with the many advantages to be had if they would only consider letting us share our own land. They weave fairy tales describing the wonderful life we could have shuttling between different old cities, playing backgammon by the various holy sites while sipping tea and digesting the falafel and hummous sandwiches we shouldn??t have eaten so late into the starry night. They practically make promises to love, to respect, to cherish, and even to obey ? if only Israel would be so kind enough to believe us. We even pretend our grievances only go back 40 years, not to pressure our dear foe too much.

There are other approaches which seem to confuse our little Martian even more; in some cases, instead of extolling the virtues of a Pax Israeliana to reassure our kind neighbors, the victims proceed to analyze the ??defeat? in a war we never really had a chance to fight. It??s all Nasser??s fault, apparently. Or Abdul Hakim Amer??s fault. No, wait, it??s a collective failure of all Arabs, their governments, their media, their lies. Actually, it??s not just the governments, it??s all the Arabs who are to blame, having allowed this to happen, and still wallowing in misery 40 years later while Israel has developed into a land of milk, honey and technology. It??s our fault, goes this strange argument, for having wished for war and having pushed Israel??s feelings of vulnerability; this nonsense, having already been put to rest by prominent historians, has even been countered by Israeli politicians and soldiers who admitted having provoked this war. The argument that Arab regimes are as much to blame for this situation is moot, anyway, as it in no way reduces Israel??s responsibility and criminality.

Some resort to romanticizing the visit of Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem; wouldn??t it be wonderful if Bashar Assad did the same? Or, even better, King Abdullah? Didn??t this gesture by Sadat bring long-lasting peace to Egypt, which even got back its entire Sinai? See how ready and willing Israel is to make peace, if only the Arabs would make the first step? Never mind that Sadat??s visit, a divide and rule example of the most basic level, caused more long-term damage to the Palestinian cause than any other action, that Camp David allowed the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and that most Egyptian people still don??t seem so enamored with Israel, nearly 30 years after they stopped making war. Why oh why has the love gone from this marriage? Go figure.

Nowhere does blame for Israel seem to take center stage, where it should be, showing how much we seem to be collectively losing track of reality. Israel has even managed to intellectually terrorize people into obedience, waving the anti-Semitism stick with every mild criticism of Israel, and passing the baton to a most acquiescent media to continue its dirty job. Naturally, opinions like the present one will be presented as ??proof? that such ??hardline? Syrians do not want peace, that they do not accept Israel, and that inbuilt ??hatred? cannot be rewarded with negotiations, let alone land. As if our land and our rights had become rewards for which we must first perform to the satisfaction of the master. Luckily for Israel, the Syrian regime has not actually been that uncompromising of late, even considering a Golan ??peace park? where we can visit and toast each other??s good health — that is if our partners agree to spare us some of the water that will have been ceded to them.

This is not about relative degrees of compromise, or about confidence-building measures, promises of everlasting love, nor even about dignity (which is certainly not more important than food for the hungry) or the tired Orientalist notions that Arabs are supposed to attach more importance to certain things like land. It is about legality, human and national rights, and all the other rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including, of course, the right of return.

That we should convince the Israeli public to give back the Golan, or indeed parts of Palestine, is a laughable concept, as is the notion that the Israeli people would convince their government to wage peace if they knew they stood no danger. The proverbial silent majority has certainly remained true to its name, responding with only deafening silence to its government??s brutality in Lebanon, in Palestine, and anywhere it pleases. The uproar about the army??s performance in Lebanon isn??t because of the massive civilian casualties it inflicted, the senseless destruction of Lebanese infrastructure, or the hundreds of thousands of inhumane cluster bombs left to maim and kill innocent civilians on a daily basis; the uproar is because the army didn??t win. This is what bothers most of the Israelis who supposedly control the fate of the Golan Heights; the others don??t seem to care. If they did, they would revolt against the shooting and killing of a seven-month foetus in his Palestinian mother??s womb, around the anniversary of Israel??s creation; or they would denounce the killing of an unarmed elderly Palestinian man in his own home, and the shooting of his wife and two sons in Hebron in a literal blood bath, on the sad anniversary of the vicious attack they so proudly name the Six Day War.

That it has become the duty of the victim to reassure the aggressor is scandalous. It must be the other way round: it is Israel which must begin to reassure its neighbors that it is worthy of the repeated peace overtures and the ever-increasing concessions made by Arab regimes in the name of the Palestinian and Arab people, without their permission. Israel must return land, pay compensation, and apologize profusely to all its victims, for all the hardship, misery and despair of the last 60 years of dispossession it forced on them. If anyone should be demanding its right to exist now, it is the Palestinian people, and it is up to Israel to prove that it is a worthy partner in peace, and that it deserves to be treated as the civilized equal it pretends to be.

Rime Allaf, writer and broadcaster.
Mosaics

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (18 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

77 Responses to the Article

Yazan Says:

I bow to you, Rime.

Alex Says:

Rime,

Even though I am “guilty” of the “give us the Golan back and we will invite you to a Falafel in Damascus” part, I thank you for taking the time to write this powerful piece. I received many emails asking me “where is Rime Allaf?”. I am sure they will be delighted with what you wrote.

Many of the contributors I invited assumed that I wanted them to write something that fits squarely within the “nice gesture” type of message. That was not necessarily my intention when I decided to set up this forum. The group of contributors I invited were those who could best express the views of the widest possible representation of opinions that Syrians hold today concerning the conflict with Israel. I wanted thousands of Israelis who visited this site to get to know what “Syrians” are thinking. “Syrians” are not one person with one opinion. One of the biggest lies that people in Israel (and the United States) got to believe after they heard it a million times, is that it is the hard line Syrian regime which is holding its people from making peace with Israel (and Lebanon, and …)

I hope with this impressive participation from Syrians of all backgrounds, that I can make some general conclusions

1) ALL Syrians want the return of the Golan Heights in full.

2) ALL Syrian care about Palestinians’ future and their well being. They will support a separate Syrian/Israeli peace agreement that respects Syrian rights, but if Israel wants the real warm peace and great neighborly relation that it did not get from its peace treaty with Egypt, then Israel needs to work hard on settling its relationship with the Palestinians in a fair and just way.

3) Syrians do not hate Jews and would go out of their way to be the most hospitable hosts when a peace loving Jewish visitor meets them in Damascus.

4) Most Syrians will not support their president if he went out of his way to make more significant gestures towards Israel … not after Israel’s war on Lebanon last summer, and not for Prime minister Olmert who is not respected or liked or trusted, and not when this US administration is waiting to to destroy potential Syrian overtures, and not to support them or encourage them.

Am I wrong is my general conclusions above?

Mazen Says:

I would like to thank you Rime, for this article. Indeed, I agree with you with almost everything you said here, and you can see my views also in my article.

Arabs and Syrians are not going to beg for their rights. And we are not going to give them up either, no matter how long it takes, years, decades, or even centuries. We extend our hands for a new beginning, yes, but in dignity and always on the right bases.

Most of the Pro-Israel answers seem to stop at the point of the measuring standard. What applies to them cannot apply to us, and vice versa. An enforced status quo of convenience, biased severely toward their interests, is all they seem to care about. Unbiased logic and fairness seem to have little place, unfortunately.

I want to thank you particularly for mentioning compensations. It is a subject that seems so out of place in today’s cowardly world. But it absolutely is a right to the countless victims of Israel.

Helen, my late English teacher in Aleppo, God bless her soul once told me that after discussing with an Israeli for an hour he called her anti-semitic. She answered “I cannot be anti-semitic, I AM a Semite.” But it does not matter, the label manufacturing industry is always turning out new exotic products. Jews opposing the Zionist establishment are labeled “Self-Hating Jews.” (read “Self Haters Unite”, by Gilad Atzmon.)

But calling things names will not change reality. It can confuse some people, yes, but only for so long.

Thank you for a powerful statement, Rime.

Mazen

The Syrian Brit Says:

Rime,
As ever, superbly written, elegantly stated, and powerfully argued…
I humbly stand in awe, and salute your principled, uncompromising stance…
Thank you, once again, for being so eloquant in saying what we all feel..

Naji Says:

Our clever (control freak) Alex has rigged this thing so that one can only vote once (Is that realy a Syrian thing to do?!) for each post, but I will keep trying to hack-in the few hundred extra votes I feel like casting for your article…! :)

Alex Says:

lol !!

Naji, … it is easy … go to an internet café, a friend’s house, to work … you can vote from another IP address… there is only so much I can control. This can never be as professional and as tight as our Syrian elections!

Besides, Rime does not need your help as you can see so far : )

I was doing well (#2) and very close to number one (Syrian Brit) … then Rime showed up.

Then someone gave me a 1/5 today… so now I am out of the competition officially.

Baseeta.

Rime Says:

Thank you all for your kindness and your vote of confidence. It is always appreciated. Yazan, you do me too much honor … and why haven’t you written anything? Naji, you made me giggle … and why haven’t you written anything? Syrian Brit, your words of wisdom should always be the final word, because nobody can say the obvious, and the right thing, like you do. Mazen, you and I agree on many things, and I am so glad to see that you also pick on the compensation issue. I will keep on talking about right of return + compensation until needed.

Alex, you are not wrong at all in most of your points, and indeed this is probably what a forum like this one would achieve. However, and I speak only for myself while hoping others agree with me, your point 2 is not strong enough. As far as I’m concerned, a peace treaty with Syria, even when it returns the entire Golan (nothing less is acceptable anyway, it’s a matter of principle really), but which leaves Palestinians dispossessed is worthless for me. My “hardline” position begins with Palestine and ends with Palestine.

As for your slipping from number 2, are you saying you’re sorry I finally showed up on this forum? :)

Philip I Says:

Rime

Spot on. But neither your “defiance” and standing up for what is legal and morally right nor the other contributors’ appeals, explanations and peace protestations are likely to wash with the Israelis.

I have refrained from writing a piece here because I have a simple and clear conviction which I never tire of repeating on my blog. The Golan will never be liberated (peacefully) without a greater balance between Syria and Israel in conventional military strength (meaning a more professionally trained army and better equipped airforce and navy, not just a pile of missiles with chemical warheads!)

That is the only language and only currency in the geopolitics of this international conflict. Dialogue and building trust will help to prevent a full scale armed conflict from flaring up and persuade warring parties to settle their differences peacefully and cooperate economically. As a nation, we are in the eyes of the world and Isreali strategists “very nice” but not very credible.

DJ Says:

Rime;
I, one more time, salute you for your patriotism, patience, comprehensiveness and courage.

I also believe that the peace on the Syrian-Israeli track is inseparable from a similar and equally dignifying peace (and livelihood) for the Palestinians.

Would I consider myself at peace with the Israelis (even when a peace treaty is signed and implemented) while our Palestinian brethren are still wailing in despair?

You can bet that I wouldn??t?..

Thank you very much Rime:)

Alex Says:

Rime, if my piece had a 4 rating, then yours should be an 8 out of 5 … at least.

But If I programmed it this way Yazan will be convinced that his hypothesis last month on your blog was valid after all : )

Back to more serious issues:

1) Yazan and Naji .. why didn’t you write? huh? why didn’t you?
: )

2) I’ll admit that I do not support asking for anything more than the generally accepted compromise of land for peace. Why? because it is practically impossible for any Israeli government to sign, or to later deliver more than the return to the 1967 borders… the same way it is impossible for the Syrian president to compromise in regard to a single inch of the Golan.

I know that when Israelis start to travel to Damascus they will hear the real story about Syria and the Syrian people. They will realize that they are not the scary enemy they learned to fear or hate.

This, in my humble opinion, would be the most promising way to change Israeli public opinion toward their other enemy .. those Palestinians who send their children to kill themselves. I believe the Syrian people through honest direct dialog with Israelis will be able to tip the scale in Israel … They won’t convince the most extreme hard liners (the ones Albert talks about), but they will change the minds of some 25% or Israelis for example… then the Labor party can perhaps again win the next elections : )

I know that nothing like that happened in Egypt after its peace treaty with Israel. But I am more confident about Syria … why? because Sadat did not ask Israel to do anything about Palestine when he signed. Syria will give Israel the options: cold peace … end of hostilities through Land for peace, or gradual warming of relations ONLY if Israel moves ahead on the right path towards solving the Palestinian problem… when Syria is on board (and not boycotted and targeted like in previous “peace efforts”) things go much more smoothly.

I am hoping that Israel WILL listen to Syria’s advice and choose to achieve much more than a cold land for peace.

THEN, few years later, the state of mind in Israel will be much more receptive to more reasonable final solutions with the Palestinians …

And while I am showing you how optimistic I am, I think eventually our region will go through what Europe is going through … a gradual attenuation of the borders … things will be very different few decades from now… that’s when Israel can become a true democracy and the idea won’t be as scary to its Jewish citizens as it is today.

Jedi Warrior Says:

A succinct and clinical piece by Rime – as would be expected.

The Israeli monopoly on being the ONLY Semites has always confused me. Historically and even in the contemporary period there is more than 1 kind of Semites.

Before claiming to be the SOLE semites in the world it would be interesting to further investigate whether the majority of Israelis today are actually descendants of the Turkish Khazar tribe tha t converted en masse to Judaism.

Rime Says:

Philip, I do not disagree on the idea, but I do not see how Syria can ever become a military power which would make Israel think twice. It didn’t happen when there was a Soviet Union, so how can it happen now? Getting arms is one thing, and – as you said – training a whole army is another thing. From what I’ve seen of the state of the army now, I’m not very optimistic.

Alex, you want Labor in power? The labor of Amir Peretz who tried to be more royal than the king when Olmert launched his war on Lebanon? Or the labor of Rabin the breaker of children’s bones? Or the labor of Barak who needed Clinton to twist Assad in time for elections in Israel? I have to say I am becoming more accustomed to Likudniks – at least you know where you stand with them.

I frankly don’t see why the onus is on us to make ourselves noticed and liked by the Israeli public, which is allowing all these atrocities to happen. Why should we care how they feel about us? They don’t have the excuse of not knowing, like others not so familiar with the reality.

DJ and Jedi, thank you. Naturally, we fully agree on the question of Palestine.

naim Says:

Rime,
I agree with all what you said but i believe the question was how to convince an Israeli to give back the Golan Heights , Do i really believe that they can be convinced without the threat of war , No i do not .
In my opinion the only way is a long term war that will force the Israeli es to move to the US or the EU which they started to do during last summer war.

Philip I Says:

Rime

If we agree on the principle of balance of power as the route to the peaceful liberation of the Golan, the issue of how you achieve that balance is what we should be debating.

We now live in a multi-polar world. The Russians, the Chinese and a host of other non-Nato countries can supply a great deal of what we need. To be a client of any superpower weakens and constrains rather than emboldens you. The issue is not the availability of hardware but our ability and willingness as a nation to build a professional army/airforce/navy. A military force that can withstand a prolonged campaign (which Israel cannot). One that is technically capable of launching effective offensive operations, not just in the Golan, but also inside northen Israel, with air cover (if the land of 1948 Israel is sacrosanct, so is the Golan). Where do we get the money from? How do we organise ourselves more effectively? These are the eternal questions of economic management, political legitimacy and leadership.

This is not the platform intended for debating such internal issues but I hope enough Syrians (and intelligent Israelis) will accept that justice and peace among nations do not come about just by being nice and reasonable. We also have to have real teeth and claws and be prepared to use them.

Alex Says:

Dear Philip,

According to Abdel Rahman Elrashed, who spent the past two years criticizing the Syrian leaders, Syria should be credited with defeating the United States in Iraq.

And you also know, I’m sure about how Hizbollah more or less “defeated” the Israelis in Lebanon last summer… with its few thousand soldiers.

I think it is already clear to many Israelis that extreme force can not solve their problems … I always read the comments in Haaretz and I realize that the number of those who are eager to see the IDF play a match against the Syrian army (for no real reason) is diminishing.

I agree with you that we are not there yet. But I think Israel in on the right track in that respect. The peak of their confidence (over confidence) was reached about three years ago when the United states succeeded in entering Baghdad with ease .. when Prime minister Sharon managed to reduce the number of successful suicide attacks especially after the wall was built … and when Israeli fighter jets flew over the Syrian presidential palace just for fun… it looked like wither Israel, or the United states will enter Damascus next and install a peace loving regime and everything will be just fine.

We are far from that kind of mood today … I don’t think Syria needs to arm itself much more than the defensive weapons that were purchased (supposedly) the past two years.

For now about 40% of Israelis are sold on the idea of returning the Golan to Syria. Israel will return the Golan when an additional 20% of Israelis are sold on the benefits of ending the conflict with Syria.

I prefer to discuss how we can achieve that instead of discussing how can we enlarge our army and how can we pay for it.

Jedi Warrior Says:

One of the major Arab countries like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya etc. needs to be militarily powerful so that the bargaining and negotiating in ‘final talks’ between Israel and the Arabs can be on a just and level playing field.

At the moment Israelis with their obvious superiority in conventional and also nuclear weapons feel that they can more or less dictate to Palestinians and Arabs the terms and make no real kinds of concessions. This is not really peace but dictating peace. For any real peace to be durable in the long term there has to be give & take on both sides. This is why the Arabs need to be in a position of strength to negotiate with the Israelis.
The myth of Israeli military invincibility on the battlefield has been slightly downgraded by Hizbullah in the Lebanon war and is a shock to Israelis generally.

Although various Arab leaders & regimes have tried to do so esp. with Soviet assistance during the cold war none has been particularly successful e.g. Algeria gave up its nuclear programme under US/French pressure,
Libya’s ‘great leader’ has had yet another schizophrenic change of vision,
Egypt’s nuclear programme is ‘frozen’ due to external pressures,
Syria is not known to have a nuclear programme but relies on chemical/biological weapons deterrence and for its strength,
the Saudis can probably afford to buy nuclear weapons on the black market and probaby will do so in the future to balance the ‘heretical Persian Shias’ – but who wants a ‘wahhabi’ government with nuclear weapons either?

This really only leaves Egypt or Syria to become militarily powerful. The funding could come from the ‘brotherly’ Gulf nations with increased profits and revenues from petroleum. The training of the armed forces if really needed (as Rime alludes to) could come from helpful conutries like Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia etc.

The Arab world really needs a form of NATO and EU. The Arab League is completely toothless and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Philip I Says:

Alex

“For now about 40% of Israelis are sold on the idea of returning the Golan to Syria. Israel will return the Golan when an additional 20% of Israelis are sold on the benefits of ending the conflict with Syria.

I prefer to discuss how we can achieve that instead of discussing how can we enlarge our army and how can we pay for it.”

I would prefer to discuss both at the same time because we must never deny ourselves any strategic options.

Alex Says:

Philip And Jedi Warrior,

I believe Syria already has enough destructive weapons. They do.
I am happy with the balanced way Syria is approaching war and peace possibilities. Engaging in an intensive military purchase and training program will make Israelis very nervous … then you might be guaranteeing they decide to go for a preemptive war.

Updating Syria’s defensive capabilities was necessary and I am happy they did it without making anyone panic.

Rime,

I agree, sometimes a Likud right wing leader like Begin might be more decisive that a Barak who thought he can outsmart everyone with his last minute reduced offer in Geneva, or his unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon that he thought is a genius move to make Syria lose the Lebanon and HA cards.

But Rabin’s way of handling the first Intifada .. breaking the bones of Palestinian children … terrible .. but Rabin had to either “show leadership” or step over and let someone like Sharon to do “better” .. kill those demonstrating children.

But the general question is: When will Israelis elect a strong, popular leader who can deliver? … the past decade they could only elect leaders who never had a majority .. instead, they always came up with policies that somehow tried to satisfy their coalition partners … from the left to the extreme racist right.

Rime Says:

All the points you make (Naim, Philip, Jedi) are valid, but I still do not think it is a possibility in today’s world. The “balance of power” can never be favorable for a country like Syria, which has to rely on other elements to “force” Israel to give back the Golan, and to change its attitude. I have no doubt that what was taken by force can only be regained by force, but it may be unconventional force, and it may be through proxies. By the way, I don’t think we should get ideas from the Hezbollah performance last summer: the Syrians can’t fight like that, and a conflict with Syria would look a lot different.

We are discussing the Golan and not internal issues, but I must add what I have written elsewhere: I do not believe the Syrian army, nor the Syrian regime as a whole, are acting for the benefit of Syria and its people. They are not the ones who will dedicate their efforts to get the Golan, but they will certainly work towards getting the best deal for them.

Alex, sorry to disagree about your sources again, but how is the word of Saudi spokespeople like Rashed important or even interesting? As for Haaretz, I think you know that it is far from representative of Israeli opinion. I don’t know where you got the 40% figure, which I don’t believe, but more importantly I don’t think it matters. The Golan is small fry compared to Palestine: do these 40% believe the Palestinians shouldn’t be treated like this, and that they deserve their own country on pre-67 borders?

Alex Says:

Rime,

I’m sure numbers changed since the time this poll’s results were released. But it is recent enough. Here is the part I quoted:

Fifty-seven percent of 499 respondents said they supported negotiations, while 54 percent said they could not agree to a Golan withdrawal. Fifty-nine percent said they feared another war would break out in the north unless talks were held.

As for Mr. Al-Rashed, he is not the worst of the Saudi journalists, Tareq is. But since Al-rashed had his share of advising Syrian to not mess up with the Americans in Iraq and to accept their list of demands as is, I found it ironic that HE reached the conclusion that Syria defeated the Unite States in Iraq.

I agree … this is not very scientific : )

By the way, if you clicked on the link to Tareq’s piece today, he says that he is sad that Syria does not have the 120 movie theaters it used to have in the 80’s… this is his proof that Syria is backward.

Perhaps someone should explain to Tareq that Syrians today have other means to watch movies … today there is a new invention called a “DVD”, also the “VHS”, Computer downloaded movies, and the endless Satellite TV stations… very backward. He is right. And he is such an impressive asset for Asharq Alawsat.

He also wrote that he flew over Damascus and felt sad (again) because Damascus was such a dark and lifeless city.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Rime,

As my name suggests, I am indeed an Israeli. Like with Albert’s comments in this Blog, your piece too was very hard for me to read. I feel like we’re two people who are trying to see if there’s a chance to do business together (bare with me), but you come to the meeting with your Uzi machine-gun spraying bullets everywhere while yelling “why should I want to do business with YOU? It should be YOU who should want to do business with ME? Now, of course, it is us Israelis that are carrying the weapons in the Palestinian territories that aren’t ours, and an Uzi gun is Israeli made. But in this scenario, do you think there’s a chance in the world that ANY person on the other side would even contemplate listening to you, let alone do business with you? What you’re very clearly suggesting, is that there are NO equal parties here, and that we shouldn’t treat each other as such. That the proof of intentions should come from only one side (ours) not from both. That genuine fear and distrust legitimately exists only on one side (yours), and not also on ours.

The problem here, I believe, is that we will NOT reach any kind of peaceful ending to our century-long conflict until each side will be able to look through the OTHER’S eyes. A majority of Israelis will never vote in a national referendum for giving back the Golan, or withdrawing from the entire West Bank, until they are able to see the legitimate rights taken by force from the Syrians and the Palestinians. But the same goes for you. You will never be able to provide me what I need from you, until you understand what I need. You don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to like it. In fact, you can think it is the most outrageous, illogical, misleading, almost criminal thing in the world for Israelis to feel the threatened side, or a victim, rather than the aggressor. But you’ll still have to understand it from my angle, and so will the Palestinians or anyone else that wants to get back from Israel what may be (legitimately) theirs.

The alternative, I’m afraid, is a dangerous deterioration into another regional war, except that this time, the sides will not be fighting on the ground with slow moving, relatively harmless, tanks and infantry, but rather in the skies, with fast moving and extremely harmful planes and missiles. Without seeing it in a “poll” in Israel, I can imagine that Israelis will feel extremely vulnerable if or when thousands of missiles land in major cities throughout the country (more serious missiles than last summer’s from Hizbollah), and unfortunately an immediate consensus will be created to approve severe retribution upon anyone deemed an aggressor. By the way, I’m in no way assuming the “other side” will be the initiator here, it may very well be Israel, or what our leaders nowadays so much enjoy calling “a miscalculation”. If this happens, you and I will not be concerned about the Golan, but rather the tens of thousands of dead on both sides, and the rebuilding of our nations. I of course view this as the worst possible scenario, because it WILL send us back decades, and possibly much worse than that.

The way I see it, you speak about real rights, and wrongs, and principles. But just like anything in the real world, true justice is hardly ever achieved. Think of murderers in most modern nations, and the punishment they receive. With the exception of a few places like (I can’t believe I’m using this example) Texas, George W’s state when he was governor, which allows the execution of such criminals, what justice is done when someone that has murdered and raped gets a “lifetime” in jail, while getting good food, daily exercise, reading material, even a college degree? Do you think there is a chance in the world that most Israelis will ever view themselves as murderers? Or that they would collectively “beg” for forgiveness? Or, for that matter, that a consensus will be reached, in our lifetime, with most Israelis coming to the conclusion that WE were the aggressors, and YOU were the victims? I think your perception of Israelis attests to your belief. So no, I don’t believe full justice will EVER be done to the Palestinians that suffered and continue to suffer under our rule. Nor was justice ever done to my family, for having 95% of it depart this world as ashes through chimneys courtesy of Nazi Germany. Indeed it IS unimaginable that a people that lost 1/3rd of its entire population in merely 6 years could cause so much pain upon anyone else thereafter, but it did. All I can hope, Rime, is that I’ll live to be able to apologize to a single Palestinian family. But if you think that an entire people are going to feel the kind of guilt you’re expecting, you’re going to be disappointed. Just as I as a Jew and an Israeli had to decide if I was ready to turn the page with Germany, Austria, and Poland that no longer support Nazism, so will you, as a Syrian and an Arab, have to decide if you are able to look at us differently one day. If not, this task will be left for your children, and you will unfortunately continue to live with the hatred.

One day, when all of this is behind us, I hope to sit with a Rime that is open enough to hear my side, to understand though not necessarily agree, and to see what could cause a people to do terrible things to others. Then, after you listen, you will also receive my apology.

Rime Says:

Mr. Israeli, don??t you think you??re slightly over dramatizing my argument for Israel to reassure us, rather than the other way around? Trying to drag us back into the ??woe is Israel, nobody understands its fears? soliloquy by making my position akin to my spraying everyone with an Uzi (I would have said it would have been a Kalashnikov, but I??m glad to say this is not a scenario that is ever going to happen) really is over the top.

You admit that it is your side which is currently holding (and using) a very real Uzi, and that nobody on your side would be willing to listen to somebody like me. What have I asked for that was not already guaranteed by international law? Do you accept international law? And how does Israel??s recognition that it has been wrong in any way endanger its security?

We have been listening to you, and to your allies, for several decades; the more we listen, the less we are allowed to point out to the obvious. Israel claims repeatedly that it wants security, but all it has demonstrated is an insatiable greed for land, and a readiness to go to any length necessary to grab it illegally.

I find it interesting that you make the comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany, explaining that you turned the page with Germany, Austria and Poland when they no longer supported Nazism. Give Palestinians the chance to do the same by no longer supporting Zionism, and show us you want to belong to our neighborhood.

Alex, Homayed (for whom I have absolutely no professional respect, to put it mildly) is right about one thing: it is completely backward to prohibit people from culture, including popular culture, movies, music, theatre and of course literature. If they are not free, nothing is free, and the Baath is guilty of great crimes against our cultural heritage, and our cultural future. But the pompous (over nothing) Homayed should refrain from throwing stones from his glass palace. I would much rather resort to illegal videos and DVDs, or walk down the lovely dark streets of old Damascus passing different houses of worship, than have to worry about bearded men wearing dresses and bearing sticks, hitting whoever they feel is not abiding by the rules of a religion which I don??t recognize and which they are forcing on everyone.

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

I just want you to know that Rime writes the same way about the many things that are wrong inside Syria… please do not take it as “hate” that is directed towards you (in case you did). She is usually very tough on me for example, although this week she is giving me a break : )

Notice that readers absolutely loved her piece here. I loved it too (and gave it the first 5-star rating), even if I have an approach closer to your approach for dealing with the conflict.

I agree with you that from a practical perspective, Israelis are still voting more often for Likud and other right wing candidates. This consistent preference does not make me believe that there is much chance for a public apology (or corrective measures) from Israel towards the Palestinians.

My question to Rime and the other Syrian readers is: Will you support (enthusiastically, or barely) a peace treaty between Syria and Israel while the Palestinian track is still in progress? … or do you prefer to wait until Israelis are ready to give the Palestinians their legitimate rights before Syria settles with Israel? … will Israelis do that (eventually) because they are weaker? … do you believe when Israel feels weak and vulnerable it compromises or does it start planning to use more force to re-establish its superiority?

Mr. Israeli, I have a question for you: What do you recommend for Syrians to do when they send signals (or communicate) with Israel(ies)?

I said it before but I will repeat it again: it is not easy … you are a country that is split between those who believe (or claim they believe) that Syria is a scary threat, and on the other hand those who would love to see the IDF attack Syria and win an expected (to them) easy victory tomorrow.

The option of a dramatic gesture is not there … I explained to you why: 1) This US administration would love to get Bashar to make a big mistake and embarrass himself, 2) Olmert is not trustworthy, he is not Rabin. 3) Visiting Israel (or even receiving an Israeli politician in Damascus) is equivalent to a recognition of Israel … which is the part that Syria is supposed to deliver AFTER a peace agreement 4) as Rime explained, most Syrians will find it bizarre to be asked to reach out to the stronger enemy that made all the mistakes in the past.

Don’t forget that Syrians do not see it as (we both made mistakes in the past).. as Dayan said, Israel planned it that way … because it was hungry for more land… the rest was Syria trying anything it could try to get the Golan back.

So short of a dramatic gesture, what to do?

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

Thank you for trying to clarify the “hatred” issue with Rime’s response. I do, however, strongly believe that her language automatically disqualifies her from any chance of participating in a solution-finding venture (I’m not sure she is even interested in doing such thing). Rime would certainly qualify as a consultant to the Syrian representatives sent to negotiate with Israelis. But she does not seem to be either willing, or capable, of truly looking through “our eyes”. She simply cannot fathom that the awkward rationale used by so many Israelis might have a shred of legitimacy. Her language is indeed strong, and again, in the real world, that would be considered extreme, and extremists are usually NOT invited to present their case during negotiations, of any sort by the way, political, business, etc.

As for the impossibility of dramatic gestures, as I suggested earlier, I simply cannot accept your reasoning. So what if George W. would love to embarass Bashar? What’s he planning for him? A banana-pie in your face at Ben-Gurion Airport? A half-empty Knesset during his speech? An Israeli public that will ridicule Syria? I don’t think so! Olmert being trustworthy or not is not an issue here. The dramatic gesture is not intended for Olmert, but rather for the Israeli public, who at the end of the day decide who the PM will be. It is THEY who have to vote in the national referendum that the government brings down by law, not one PM or another. It is THEY that have to be convinced that Syria is serious. Yes, I know what Rime would say. But whether she or I like it or not, that’s reality. I don’t think that visiting Israel must be a recognition of its actions. In fact, if I was Bashar speaking infront of the Israeli Knesset (and speaking to all Israelis watching), I would clearly state that ALTHOUGH Syria and Syrians do not view Israel’s actions as being legitimate, they are willing to open a “new page” for the sake of our future – to not look back, but rather forward. It was be really nice if Bashar or Syria would only need to “recognize” Israel AFTER a peace agreement was signed, excpet that I don’t believe it can happen in that order. Again, whether it is right or not is irrelevant. Sometimes it’s not about right or wrong… it’s about doing what’s needed. That is the only thing that Syria can be seen to be “giving” immediately in return for the Golan. Normalization, demilitarization, Israelis tourists in Damascus, all that takes time. As for your last point, Syrians might find it bizarre that the stronger enemy (as you called it) fears the intentions of the weaker side, and therefore is asking for “proof”. But again, there is no way that I can think of, where Israelis lose their innate distrust and fear of Arab intentions without something serious being done by the Arab leaders.

Although statements, and summits, have been made since 2002 that send plenty of messages of peace, apparently, perhaps because of the geo-political situation in the region, the divisions amongst the Palestinians, the dependency on the US and its attitude towards Syria, etc., these were not deemed so dramatic and did not have the effect hoped for. By the way, I didn’t say that it is Bashar that must come to Jerusalem (“…if you want peace, you come to us…”) I think it could be equally effective if Bashar invited Shimon Peres, who as I type these words is becoming Israel’s 9th President finally, to come to Damascus to discuss peace. Although Peres is identified with the left, obviously, and Bibi Netanyahu and his Likud are likely to have a ball with such a visit (mainly because Bibi would LOVE to be the one going instead…), still, this would be something unthinkable in previous decades of our conflict. I cannot imagine that anyone Israel would dare tell Peres not to go, but as he is now the President, even the PM cannot influence him anymore.

Personally, despite the fact that I’m also more of a dove than a hawk, I’m giving serious consideration to voting for Bibi next time around, because it seems that the left (or center, with Kadima at the helm now) simply cannot make peace with the Arabs. As someone mentioned before, at least with Bibi you know where you stand. Remember, it was Begin who gave up the Sinai (and was later called a “traitor” by his own Likud members), and it was Sharon that withdrew from Gaza. Who in his right mind would have gambled on the “butcher of Lebanon” to be the one to finally force Jewish settlers out? Bib swore he would never shake the hands of the terrorist Araft, and he not only did, I think he even kissed the man. Bibi also negotiated with Syria, and would probably have signed a peace treaty, and withrawn from the Golan, had Assad the father been more ready to “close the deal”.

Rime, although surely you are reinforced in your set of beliefs when receiving such wonderful feedbacks and votes, but I was surprised to see that yours is the only section that has no Israelis commenting back. Even Albert was able to tone down his THINKING, not only his talking, and speak to me, an Israeli, in a way that I would WANT to continue to understand him. You really don’t seem to care whether I understand you or not. Justice is clearly, in every absolute way, on your side. None of it exists in mine, as you see it. Forgive me for sounding so absolute as well, but if that is truly the case, then we have nothing to discuss. And you can forget about peace “in our time”. If you aren’t capable of understanding me, even without agreeing, how could we possibly have peace?

Philip I Says:

Rime

Granted, there are more ways than one to achieve a balance of power. What is blindingly obvious is that Syria is the weaker and more vulnerable side, notwithstanding the fact that it can tactically always inflict pain on the Israeli military. I do not see much effort going into achiveing a greater balance of power. You can fight limited battles by proxy but never win a war or recover territory.

In the army they teach you that strategy, organisation, and operational effectiveness come before firepower. Syria may never match Israel’s firepower but our regime of 40 years has absolutely no excuse for not ensuring that we pose a real enough military threat to Israel to persuade it to give up the Golan peacefully.

Alex
The best offer that Israel has from all the Arabs is the Saudi-led comprehensive land-for-peace plan. It happens to be the best compromise for everyone. Partial solutions and separate peace deals are no longer possible and, if signed between Syria and Israel, would be unsustainable. Palestinian grievances cannot be swept under the carpet and will come back to haunt everyone in the region.

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

Bibi is not Begin. I don’t think we know where he stands. He is a selfish politician, not a statesman. And Hafez did not refuse a final reasonable offer from Bibi.

And Peres is not Rabin. And he is not trusted by Syria. Not only because his positions on peace with Syria, but also because in recent years he took part in regional games where he sided with “the Arab moderates” and the Bush administration in trying to change the Syrian regime.

I feel more comfortable with some of your ex-intelligence officers. I think they are more honest and reasonable than the politicians.

I am not saying that Syria will chose which Israeli politician it wants to talk to … they will talk to whoever you chose to lead you. But I am just telling you my perceptions of Bibi and Shimon Peres.

As for ALTHOUGH Syria and Syrians do not view Israel??s actions as being legitimate, they are willing to open a ??new page? for the sake of our future – to not look back, but rather forward.

I think it is quite reasonable. Maybe if Bashar gets proper assurances (in writing) that Israel is willing to return the Golan in full, he could give an interview to Haaretz in which he would say those words and more.

But the problem, again, is that there is no clarity in Israel and certainly not in Washington.

I think that a Madrid 2 is what the Middle East as a whole needs. Syria prefers a regional conference that deals with all the urgent issues, especially the Palestinian cause. I think Madrid 2 would make it more attractive for the “Arab moderates” since it gives them a role to play (everyone loves to play a role in everything) and it makes it easier for this US administration to take part in, than sponsoring Syrian Israeli talks exclusively where President Bush might be forced to meet with Bashar at some point … which he is certainly not looking forward to.

Philip, I agree. Madrid 2 could be based on “the Arab peace plan”.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

As you said, it is meaningless what Syria thinks of Bibi, or Peres, or Olmert for that matter, because it will have to negotiate with whomever we send. I personally never liked Bibi, but I’m beginning to suspect that he is mroe likely to represent my ultimate goals than any left-supporting ex-intelligence officer. Look, every Israeli politician almost is “tainted” one way or another with having disappointed the Arabs. Even Rabin wasn’t respected by the Arabs until he came to power and started making behind-the-scene concessions. The point of mentioning Begin, Sharon, and Bibi in the same breath was merely to suggest that all Likud leaders know that when they’re talking to the Arabs, they have most of the nation behind them (even if some within their party will later label them “traitors” as with Begin). That is never the case with leaders from the Left or even Center (as we see now with Olmert). Suppose Barak was to win the next election, running against Bibi, he still will not feel backed up by enough Israelis when sitting at the table, even in a Madrid 2.

As for written assurances to Bashar, I’ve tried explaining this point a few times in this Blog. A new law was recently passed requiring a national referendum to take place regarding any future of the Golan. In other words, no politician, party leader, prime minister, or even president of Israel can know in advance that he/she will have the backup of a majority of Israelis when it comes to presenting a government-approved Peace Agreement with Syria. So all those land-greedy Israelis Rime is so sure of, will have the opportunity to bring down any proposal, if they only reach a majority vote. So how do we make sure the majority vote FOR giving back the Golan, instead of against? Dramatic… Confidence… Building… Steps… And if that can’t occur, becuase perhpas Bashar too isn’t Hafez, or Sadat, or King Hussein, then I’m afraid the only thing that might cause Israelis to think again, is war, and one of many casualties. Otherwise, the staus-quo will continue to work against us all, and through the deterioration process, truly unpredictable parties will finally acquire the means to set the entire Middle East on fire, if it ever served their interests.

Alex, I believe you understand our point of view better than most of your other commentators (even if you disagree with its legitimacy). Why don’t you explain to your fellow countrymen/women that they must be able to put on “our glasses” if we are to get anywhere, just as we must do the same with Syria’s. What really gets to me, regarding the Syrian-Israeli conflict, is that we already know the price, we already agree on the price, yet neither side wants to be seen as “bowing” to the other. Each side is convinced it is the threatened one, the victim, not the aggressor, and therefore has the right to “sit and wait” for the other, stronger side, to act. Maybe we just don’t want this peace badly enough, because when you want something, and you don’t get it one way, you try another, and another, and another. Until you get it. But in the meantime, the pressure is growing on both sides, and there is some physical tendency of bodies to eventually find a way to release that pressure, and we all know too well how that’s normally done in our part of the world, don’t we? And on that optimistic note…

Good Night!

Rime Says:

Mr. Israeli, you continue to wax poetic about the basics for peace but fail yet again to explain where exactly there is “hatred” in my arguments, or why it is so unfeasible for Israel to recognize the wrongs it has caused, to put it mildly.

The idea that the Israeli people will eventually vote via referendum on the future of the Golan, in open defiance of UN resolutions (amongst others) which are explicit about where the Golan belongs, is one more example of the special position Israel grants itself, outside the frontiers of international legitimacy. The Israelis have no right to decide on this issue.

The Golan is not the “price” someone needs to pay to solve the conflict. The Golan was taken by force, and Israel’s claims to it are not recognized by a single country … not even the US. This type of argumentation doesn’t wash anymore. First give back the Golan, then expect to be treated like a good neighbor – except that you’ve still got the Palestinian issue to put right.

Alex Says:

Alright.

The main reason for disagreement here is the following:

Is Israel strong enough, or are Israelis so spoiled that they want to be allowed to set their own rules? … like negotiating and asking for concessions for returning something they illegally took and used for the past 40 years.

Syrians are split on this question … some want to see progress in their lifetime and therefore they support finding ways to help Israel learn how to be mature, and not selfish in dealing with others. This maturity makes it possible to reach an acceptable settlement in the near future in which Israel would return the Golan for example.

Others believe that Israel is not a good, but spoiled, child. It is in fact more like the neighborhood bully who will always threaten everyone UNLESS some neighborhood police force shows up and force the bully to respect the law, OR if the locals can find in them an equally belligerent bully (Iran?)

As you know, I do not believe that Israelis are all of one type.

1) There are the wise ones (like you, and maybe another 30-40% of Israelis)

2) Then there are the bullies who would love to again enjoy seeing the IDF in action (for whatever reason).

3) The immature and selfish (I want it all for myself and, the whole world must always take care of me).

4) The insecure ones… overly afraid of the evil Syrians (or Arabs, or Muslims …)

So, after my repetitive boring “analysis”, I will say that Rime is absolutely right in her attitude. But that’s the right attitude to have when dealing with type 2 above (the bullies)

Mr. Israeli is right is suggesting that a different attitude is necessary. But what he is asking for works only for Types 1 and 4 above (the wise, and the insecure ones). On the other hand, it will create more bullies from the ones who are borderline (balanced bullies) … they will be convinced that Syria is weaker than they thought and that the weakness explains why Bashar is too nice to Israel lately.

I believe that the Israeli public needs to be re-educated about Syria before Bashar makes that dramatic move… there has been a lot of brainwashing the past few years that left Syria looking like a weak failed state in the eyes of most Israelis.

Who needs to “make painful concessions” to gain such a country as a friend?

Somehow all this talk about a war breaking out with Syria “by mistake” and all the talk about Syria’s newly strengthened army that can pose a real threat to Israel, might be intentional efforts to make the bullies realize that there is a need to make peace with Syria… this implies that a decision to talk to Syria was taken already few months ago and today we are seeing the preparatory stage where some of the prerequisites are taken care of.

But maybe that is all wishful thinking and we will somehow casually trip and fall into that accidental war trap.

Madrid 2 is the best way out. It is not only Syria, the Palestinians and Israel. The other Arabs want to sit on the same table and enjoy the show.

Rime what do you think of Madrid 2?

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

If you think about it, the breakdown you suggested exists in just about every country you know. Israel is no different in that respect. But I fail to understand the logic behind fearing that Syria might be deemed “too weak” for us to make “painful concessions” to. Forget the bullies, ALL Israelis know that Syria is the weaker side here, but because as I’ve said before we tend to see all Arabs as the same (not differentiating enough between nationalities, overt or covert support for Hamas or Hizbollah, aspirations, legitimate resistance, etc.) we still find ourselves fearing that Syrians have not given up on their wish to “throw us into the sea”. And, obviously, most Israelis do not accept that Syria must continue its relationship with Iran, as well as its support of Hamas and Hizbollah. Those “30-40%” as you called them, know that if Israel had been in Syria’s shoes, it too would not change anything prior to complete withdrawl from the Golan.

I’m glad that alas you let your popular friend Rime know that you thought her approach was not the right one here. Can you imagine her suggesting to the Turks to “first give back Iskanderun, then expect to be treated like a good neighbor…”? Come on, Rime, stop living in a world of “what’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong!”, it’s as if you’re refusing to look out the window and notice that life ain’t fair. Now, I’m not suggesting that Israel should NOT return the entire Golan, or that the Palestinians were NOT hurt terribly by Israelis over the past 60 years. If it was up to me, I would tomorrow morning take out every last soldier, tank, and settler out of these territories, not because of YOU (Rime), but because that place is not mine. I don’t need UN resolutions to tell me that, I know what is mine, and what isn’t. Incidentally, were you as vociferous all those years Syria “found itself” occupying and controlling Lebanon? I hope the answer is YES, but somehow I doubt it.

But unfortunately, since life is NOT fair, we DO have to have most Israelis choose correctly when they DO vote in that national referendum on the Golan. If they vote wrong, the Golan will NOT be returned so quickly, and Syria probably WILL have to try to retrieve it by force. Obviously, in such a situation, there will be no “miscalculations” or mistakes – a regional war will take place, probably more terrifying than anything we’ve ever seen in the region, because Israelis might make “the mistake” of viewing this as an existential threat.

As a last comment, Alex, I really don’t think that falling for the use of patronizing nomenclature with terms such as “not mature”, “spoiled child”, will help Israelis get rid of their innate distrust of the Arabs. If the intention of the blog is to also speak to Israelis, then I strongly suggest more respectful terminology be used. It is simply too easy that way for an Israeli to feel he/she are not being taken seriously. Very little serious dialogue can take place between a “responsible adult” and a “spoiled child”. I hope you agree…

By the way, to remind us all, what led to the Madrid Conference was the First Gulf War. I hope in order to get to a Madrid 2, or a Riyadh 2 as I prefer it, we won’t need to go through another war in the region. It really is NOT so far-fetched I’m afraid…

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

First, please don’t get me in trouble with Rime : )

I did not say her approach is “wrong”. It is a good approach with the Bullies, but not so good with the other types.

By the way I know Rime is very busy today, I will answer on her behalf: She is always frank and tough whenever something is not right. Most of her criticism is directed at Syria’s government and its mistakes. Or maybe both Israel and Syria’s government share the top spot.

Now my part: Please forgive me for sounding patronizing. I am the first to admit I am not mature in many ways. there is nothing exceptional there. No one is completely mature. Syrians might be not mature in other ways and if Syria was the party which was refusing to make peace with Israel I would be discussing those aspects as well.

The reason I prefer to address the challenge of convincing Israelis who are not mature is because it is a problem that will not go away if we ignore it. And this Forum is not exclusively a public relations effort. It would be boring if we only stick to nice talk : ) … I hope you know that we are all civilized people who want to discuss our ideas and raise our issues with equally civilized people from your side, and I will repeat again how happy I am with almost all the Israelis who joined us here, especially you. You are very patient and understanding.

As for the new restriction that Israeli people would now have to approve their government’s decision to give back the Golan … that guarantees one thing: Syria will be very formal in negotiations until the Israeli people approve the return of he Golan. Too bad, I understand that it would be much better if there are some dramatically friendly moves from Syria, but the fact that the whole process is very uncertain (thanks to the extra approval step requirement) then it would be highly unlikely that Syria would do anything that looks like it recognized Israel in advance.

You see … the rest of the Arab world watches Syria. If the Syrians make it OK to shake hands with Israeli politicians, then the other Arab officials will be more comfortable to to the same in public (some do it already, but they are a minority). Same goes about talking to Israeli journalists. So Syria will not accept to facilitate the introduction of Israel to the Arab world during negotiations if there is still a big obstacle at the end of the process … the Israeli people now need to also sign on the deal.

Finally, Syria’s weakness is different … the full picture is not only about perception of weakness, but also of evil nature … since Syria opposed the Iraq war, there has been concentrated American, Saudi, French, Lebanese, Jordanian, and to some extent Egyptian media campaign to portray the Syrians as weak and “evil” and even stupid … and of course “undemocratic” … and the Israeli people who read the same type of media absorbed the exaggerated negative image.

With Jordan (weak) there were no “painful concessions” .. Egypt and the Palestinians had the obvious ability to make life miserable for Israelis (Egypt was the clear Arab leader). Syria? … not clear. The Israelis can tell you “but everything is nice and quiet on the Golan .. why should we give it up?

Rime Says:

There already IS another war in the region, I thought you would have noticed that by now. And it involves Iraq yet again.

Yes to Madrid 2, as was planned in the beginning of Madrid 1; a comprehensive and just peace, in a multilateral agreement.

God forbid that it should be a Riyadh 1, 2 or anything. The Saudis have done enough as it is.

Zenobia Says:

I am going to agree with Mr. Israeli here…in at least the basic response. As a concession first, i want to clarify that I actually appreciate Rime’s forthright attitude in which she brilliantly points out so many of the bases upon which the dialogue begins – and the assumptions that are just taken for granted.
but in terms of her tone, well, i think it is so aggressive and off putting that I really can’t imagine any Israeli of the mindset who is opposed to returning the Golan to listen to her for one second.
And one might say ‘who cares’ but i think this was the whole point really How can people be heard and reach each other emotionally or intellectually… and how does one make the right appeal to convince those who don’t see or care about the ‘rights’ of their foe.

Rime Says:

Alex, I try not to be too busy for your projects. :)

My criticism is directed at the Syrian regime – not just the government – and the Israeli regime, certainly. But how could you forget the American regime, the British regime, the Saudi regime, the Palestinian regime … where does it end? And when will we ever have conscientious people again to lead us out of this mess?

Alex Says:

Thank you Rime : )

And I’m happy you are for Madrid 2.

Mr. Israeli … why do you prefer a Riyadh2 ?

Zenobia, you asked “and how does one make the right appeal to convince those who don??t see or care about the ??rights?? of their foe.”

Can you suggest an approach? …taking into account that Israelis’ attitudes are highly variable.

I suggest that Syria needs to maintain a well balanced tone … and to continue monitoring the mood in Israel and varying its tone accordingly… from hard line to friendly.

But I would invite Yoav Stern and Akiva Eldar to interview Bashar.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Rime,

I promise you one thing – if you did find the way to tone down, to speak TO me, and not AT me, then I’m the first (Israeli) that will listen to you attentively, and will probably surprise you at how much I may agree with you about. But that’s exactly the point here, that regardless of the legitimacy of the existence of Israel, or the illegitimate ways by which it attained control of the Palestinian territories and the Golan, still, you (or others) will have to talk to us. Even a middleman nation will only be there to partly broker, not to completely replace direct talks. And it is through this blog, I had hoped, that we could try various “versions” of such talks off each other, to see which seem more likely to shatter the innate distrust between the two sides, and which are less.

One thing is clear, that if there is to be peace one day in the region of the world, it will have to be a negotiated, not a forced, peace. As such, I imagine all sides will feel they’ve gained something and also lost something. As for conscientious leaders, I’m surprised at you – we’re talking politicians here, remember? Those are a contradiction in terms, as you well know. The Churchill-eras are far and few between. And the leaders that will decide your fate and mine are unfortunately ones I wouldn’t leave alone to babysit any of my two daughters… ever!

But lastly, Rime, I hope you are pragmatic enough to understand that although there might be a chance for a majority of Israelis to vote for giving the Palestinians back their territories and the Syrians their Golan, the likelihood that most Israelis will ever view their actions as you do, is nil. You don’t have to like it, you don’t even have to understand it. But if you do hope to one day be able to enjoy a meal in Tel-Aviv together with Israeli and Palestinian friends, you’ll have to accept it. I’ve had to do that with Germans, Austrians, and Poles, and although it wasn’t easy, I knew it had to be done if we were to “move on” to a better future together.

Alex, I hope your blog will achieve the purpose I mentioned above, because I do think it can, and the people that have come on seem to be genuinely interested in furthering the cause of peace. In response to a comment you made earlier, I of course didn’t expect that all or any comments will begin with “Dear Israeli (or Dear Syrian), I love you!… let’s make peace, shall we?”

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

I suggested Riyadh (or Beirut) 2 instead of Madrid 2 for two main reasons:

a) In both summits, the Arabs essentially buried once and for all the infamous Khartoum conference with its “3 No’s”. There would be great symbolism for Israelis therefore to sit down for peace talks in these places.

b) The Arab-Israeli conflict is, at the end of the day, ours. The Europeans, or the Americans, or even the Russians, can host our talks, can broker agreements, but they cannot speak instead of us. I believe it IS time we proved to ourselves and to “the other side” that we CAN and WILL start talking to each other, directly, and right here, on the same region we have been fighting each other for close to a century. Running off to Madrid, or Oslo, or Washington D.C., seems to take us a bit too far away, in my mind. Although many would surely argue that far away would be the only place we could quietly sit and talk. My feeling is that we’ve “matured” some since (as you like to use the term, Alex) and might be ready to start working hard and here.

naim Says:

Rime , I just noticed that your score went to less than 5 , I feel better , You are human after all. By the way I did not do that,

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

I wish I could agree with your conclusion that we matured.

As I said earlier, meeting in Riyadh implies a pre-recognition of Israel by Arab states, and not only Syria. This sort of thing is only doable if there was a great promise that the process will succeed… if the Israeli prime minister, and his various ministers from the various parties, all agreed publicly that Israel will finally implement UN resolutions 242 and 338 … if a majority in the Knesset says they are willing to support such an outcome, and if reliable opinion polls consistently tell us that the Israeli people will approve a peace treaty that will return Syria’s lands in full …

I don’t see that happening.

Meeting in Beirut or Cairo (not Riyadh!) would be nice. But … you have in Israel too many ways to spoil a deal that will make the Arab side (and surely the cautious Syrians) take it one day at a time and keeping low expectations… until they can see it really happening:

1) You have a coalition government that can disagree with the prime minister or the foreign minister’s negotiated solution … early elections, new negotiators.
2) You have a Knesset that can refuse the settlement.
3) You have now, as you explained, given the Israeli people the added veto power (to decide if they insisted to keep the occupied territories)
4) and of course, you have no regard whatsoever to UN resolutions. There is no way to put pressure on you from outside if needed. The Americans will cover for you if you change your mind at the last minute when a deal is practically ready .. like when Barak “got cold feet” after Hafez Assad agreed to a deal with Clinton (Clinton’s book). Since today we do not have Clinton, the current US administration will surely not pressure Israel if Mr. Olmert turned out to be only playing internal Israeli politics when he accepted to join the peace process. As a matter of fact, you can bet that they will come out publicly and put all the blame on Syria …

Sorry for the negativity, but I had to explain to you how the Syrians do not see much that can make them hopeful to bet more on the process given all the potential obstacles and the non-friendly environment these days. The biggest risk they would take is to engage fully without any indirect pre-recognition of Israel.

At least with the Arabs, when Sadat or King Hussein signed, it was a done deal… a rare advantage of authoritarian regimes : )

Besides, calling it Riyadh2 (there was no Riyadh1) is another issue … there you get into the Syrian/Egyptian/Saudi balancing act. Those three countries, the “leaders of the Arab World” (after poor Iraq was destroyed) are always competing for (in bad times), or balancing (in good times) their relative regional roles. While I prefer a Madrid2 in order to make the Saudis and Egyptians not worry about giving Syria too much attention (they will not sabotage the peace process with Syria, since they will be seated there as well), I do not think on the other hand that Saudi Arabia needs be the host that sits at the head of the table… that would be giving them too much of a role.

Mr. israeli Says:

Alex,

I have no problem with a Madrid2, and Oslo2, or a Riyadh15. I really don’t care where it is, I was just pointing out possible symbolic values to a summit held here in the Middle East, and not there, in Europe or the US. I would support a summit on the moon, if I felt it would contribute to the chance of peace. I think your pre-conditions to an Arab-Israeli summit (in Saudi, in this case) are by definition impossible to deliver. There is no way that anyone in Israel is going to publicly (or in the Knesset) announce what we are willing to give up, or accept, prior to sitting down to negotiate. Even with Egypt, Israel did not announce in advance of Camp David its intention to withdraw from the entire Sinai (it did so through Dayan in Morocco, very quietly, and in such way that could be denied if it were leaked out). It makes sense that behind the scenes, all sorts of promises will be made, that will NEVER see the public light of day until after talks begin.

I think you underestimate the positive power that our democracy can have, not just the negative one, when it comes to deciding on the Golan. If our government and our representatives come to the people after talks have been held, and after some leaders in the region speak out in favor of peace, and in readiness to put the past behind us and start a new beginning (with the obvious price that has to be paid by all sides), I believe that most Israelis will vote FOR and not against the agreement. Most Israelis want to live peacefully just as much as any other human being does. Most Israelis have already accepted the fact that a Palestinian state MUST be established, and on most if not all the territories of pre-1967. Despite everything that’s going on now with a Palestinian civil war, we still believe that the Palestinians deserve their own nation (or two?)

At the end of the day, there will be no choice for any of us, we will have to take the chance and trust one another. We cannot negotiate a peace as friends, but rather as enemies who distrust one another. Once that pilot-pen ink is used to sign the bottom of the page, then and only then will the leaders shake hands, hug, and allow their people to do the same. I cannot expect the Syrian people or the Palestinians to go out into the streets with signs saying “Peace with Israel Now!”, and you shouldn’t expect that of us either (nor via polls, or any other public format). As a Syrian, I would be very careful suggesting that Israel respects no UN resolutions… maybe if you were a Palestinian or a Lebanese… but not a Syrian… :-)

Okay, enough soft-punching under the belt. We know what we want to say, and I think it’s time we convince others, don’t you? By the way, I certainly hope that on both sides, we have people that are well-connected to show blogs like these to “the right people”, with the hope that at least they can see that there ARE moderates out there in practice, not just in theory. Unfortunatley, most of you live abroad…

Alex Says:

If Israel is to sign a treaty with Syria, it is important that the Israeli people believe that Syria will respect international agreements.

Please tell me why “as a Syrian” I should not criticize Israel’s lack of respect to UNSC and general assembly resolutions.

Please list

1) all the UN resolutions Syria completely violated, and
2) all the resolutions that you KNOW (with a proof, not with a statement from the US, Saudi Arabia, or the Seniora government press) that Syria only partially implemented.

And I’ll leave it up to you to compare to Israel’s list : )

As for your last suggestion, I already showed this blog to “well connected” people on our side and even more, on your side : )
(indirectly)

Your turn to do your part! … “they” already talked to each other through intermediaries, but in this forum we hopefully succeeded in exposing the sensitivities of the two people and what might be popular and what can, or can not work.

Although most of us are outside Syria, I know our opinions represent a very wide range of Syrians. You noticed probably that no two contributors are identical.

Alex Says:

And here is a new photo of one of the two Synagogues in Damascus. from 1490 I think.

60 Jews still pray there

Mr. israeli Says:

Alex,

You don’t really think we’re going to engage in a UNSC-discussion now, do you? As a Syrian, or as an Earthling, you of course have a right to criticise Israel, or anyone else. But here, I’ll make it easier for you – Israel respected NO UN-resolutions whatsoever, ever. Okay, now what? Wanna make peace or not? Want an apology first? I don’t think you’ll get one… Want a Palestinian state first? I don’t think that’s possible anymore, given the civil war that we are witnessing as I type these words unfortunately.

Incidentally, I’ve noticed how the media (on our side) has for the past few weeks continuously published statements made by both sides, calling for “peace talks with no preconditions”. So? why aren’t they talking yet? Maybe airfare is expensive during the high-season? They can start by communicating through this Blog, from my point of view. You know what – I think with this terrible thing that’s happening in Gaza, there might actually be a glimpse of hope for Israelis and Syrians, because it’ll give everyone a moment of pause, to reflect on the heavy price this region is continuing to suffer without hope in sight. I think that although Rime is right that there already IS a war being fought in the region, namely in Iraq, it seems to be “too far away” for us Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians to really feel. It is always easier to focus on your own neighborhood, so to speak, than on your neighbor’s neighbor. Even though clearly events in Iraq can and do influence the regional picture.

Thank you for sharing the picture of the synagogue in Damascus. Although I would love to visit it, I think I would like even more to see the old mosques in what many consider to be the “true” oldest city in the world… even MORE than Jerusalem – you see, AGAIN you win… :-) Very glad to hear that you’ve passed along this Blog to others. I actually found out about it via our Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot’s website (www.ynet.co.il) I wonder how many Israeli visitors you’ve had…

Rime Says:

Mr. Israeli, the war in and on Iraq is very much in our neighborhood, on our borders, and in our country: we have some 1.5 million Iraqi refugees according to most estimates, probably more, and yet many more coming in on a daily basis. Damascus and its surroundings alone have witnessed great socio-economic changes because of this tragedy. Syrians very much feel the war in Iraq, just as they very much felt the war on Lebanon, and the war on Palestine.

I haven’t had a chance to respond to most comments, sorry about that. I must say it is amusing that you are all mostly talking about me in the third person, as if I wasn’t there … but I eventually show up.

I will say this one more time: what in my article is so wrong, so full of “hatred,” and needs to be “toned down”? None of those who criticized it have actually explained that. The whole point I was making was that we Syrians need to stop whispering the demands for our rights, and that it is the Israelis who should be somewhat more contrite for having caused so much chaos. I write about apologies and compensations, and I write about justice so that we can reach peace. You write about “peace” alone. It is inachievable without justice. Diktats do not bode well for long-term calm.

The tepid Syrian approach, and the Syrian regime’s legendary incompetence in image matters, are allowing articles such as the one in Haaretz today (“The Golan is Israeli” – as dreamt by the writer here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/871980.html) to pass by unchallenged. That doesn’t mean it’s acceptable, nor that just principles should be forgotten. Israel cannot have its cake and eat it too.

I also wanted to support Alex’s point about resolutions, which you waved off lightly in order to ask if we want peace. Until UNSC Resolution 1559, Syria had not been in breach of any resolution, and since the withdrawal from Lebanon in April 2005 is back to its position – and I mean officially of course. In order for us to have peace, Mr. Israeli, the dozens of resolutions flouted by Israel will have to be respected, by default.

By the way, I’m sorry to disagree about one more thing: I certainly would not classify Churchill as a conscientious leader! This man was personally responsible for a lot of misery in the Middle East alone.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Rime,

Thanks for continuing to pound. Your approach is so harsh that you’re single-handedly alienating even super-moderates like myself. Of course Israel will have to respect UN resolutions (such as 242 and 338, amongst others), as will Syria, Lebanon, Hizbollah, and everyone else, for there to be peace in the region. A tepid Syrian approach, or your boiling one, are the same to me – both do nothing to create a new atmosphere, one in which I and many other Israelis will feel it is time to put the fear and distrust away, and to take a chance. Because you cannot understand, or refuse to do so, why we Israelis actually feel these things, does not and cannot erase that feeling. I’m not saying that Syrians or Palestinians are to blame for those feelings shared by so many Israelis, but still, a new atmosphere must be created, and you have to help us create it. I am very much for a just peace, and certainly not for a forced one. But it will not be totally just (unfortunately) because, for instance, not all the Palestinian refugees will be allowed back into Israel. Perhaps one day, if my personal vision will ever come true, all nationalities and religions in the region will be free to live and work where they choose or can, and no borders will exist in a “United Middle East”. But until that day, we’ll have to settle for less than complete justice.

You know, I really haven’t felt this hopeless speaking/writing to a Syrian in a very long time, as I have with you. You won’t even let a comment about Churchill go by. Who gives a sh-t about Churchill, I was using him as an example for a leader who really did what he thoght was right for his people, more so than for himself. But you just HAD to argue this one as well, didn’t you? I’m afraid it seems that you’re set on bashing Israelis down, as hard as you can (or as eloquently as you can), hoping to achieve what? What do you realistically expect Israelis to say? That you’re right? That everything we’ve done is wrong? That most of what we’ve done is wrong? How would YOU respond if you were the Israeli? I really don’t think it is my position to tell you HOW you should talk to Israelis, but clearly your incessant accusatory fashion will NOT get you anywhere. But then, are you even interested in getting anywhere? I can’t say that the answer is clear to me.

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli, I think you meant Haaretz, no? .. the article did not appear in ynet did it?

AS for the UNSC resolutions, my emphasis was more on Syria’s side, not on criticizing Israel for its lack of compliance.

The reason was, again, that even though Syria withdrew from Lebanon immediately after 1559, the reaction from Syria’s adversaries was “but this is not enough, there is still some Syrian influence in LEbanon”

If you know Lebanon well, you will know that any famous downtown cafe will have an Israeli, American, French, Russian, and even Indian intelligence officers having a coffee. How serious is it to ask Syria (which surrounds Lebanon) to not have any intelligence presence in that country? and to therefore conclude that Syria does not respect UN resolutions.

That’s all : )

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

Why are we still talking about UN resolutions? Are we looking for our differences, or our similarities? For common interests, or for opposing ones? What would you and Rime want Israelis to say? That Israel, as a principle, does NOT respect any UN resolution that it doesn’t like? Okay, here, I’ll say it: We have not respected a number of UN resolutions (dozens, Rime) that were, in our eyes, contrary to our national best interest. Furthermore, we WILL have to respect these resolutions if peace is to be achieved. Now do you get that we don’t plan to “brush off” anything? But I’m sure that this does nothing for you – you won’t accept anything short of a complete to-the-last-centimeter withdrawl from the Golan, West Bank, Shabaa Farms, prior to even talking about peace – right Rime? You want apologies and compensation, and to be told how righteous you are and have been. But since you know that you won’t get these, certainly not before talking peace with us, then why go on about it? Why continue to justice-bash until you’re blue in the face? Does it get you anywhere? If so, then I stand corrected. But it doesn’t. And it won’t… don’t you see that? For just once in your lifetime, can’t you put yourself in our shoes? But really in our shoes. Can’t you understand the fear and distrust? Forget agreeing with them, forget justifying them, just understanding them from our point of view? Put yourself infront of yourself, be the Israeli for a second. What do you see infront of you? Is it someone that REALLY wants peace? Or is it someone that wants to argue us out of any hope? Are you pushing us in your direction, or into a corner of guilt? Think about these things. Don’t just criticise every letter, syllable, and word that comes out of our mouths. For crying out loud, Rime wouldn’t even let the Churchill-point go without critique! What do you guys want to do – scare off even the super-moderates in Israel? The ones you KNOW agree with you a lot more than disagree?

Rime Says:

Continue to pound? Justice-bash? Just because I said Israel can’t have its cake and eat it too? And because I thought I should explain what I really meant by conscientious people?

Mr. Israeli, I think your last two comments might be unnecessarily bordering on hysterical, don’t you think? There was nothing “boiling” about my approach. I keep asking and you won’t answer: where exactly do you see hatred?

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

: )

Syrians will be difficult .. until a “good” agreement is reached, then they will be the friendliest and most honest neighbors.

It is much better that we are honest with each other in advance about all the potential obstacles than to pretend everything is fine, King Hussein style. There are real questions in the area that need to be answered in order for peace to be real.

And I just remembered something, if you want to better understand Rime, she is the daughter of Mouaffak Allaf, Syria’s chief negotiator in Peace talks with Israel in the 90’s.

Her father was considered a tough negotiator by the Israelis, but he was negotiating to reach an agreement, not to sabotage it.

And again, I was trying to explain to you that my mentioning the UNSC resolutions was mostly for the fact that the past two years, the country that was mostly accused in the media of not respecting UN resolutions in the Middle East was Syria and not Israel. I was trying to explain that this continued bias in the media is one of the things that need to be corrected if the Israeli people are to support peace with Syria .. read online comments whenever Haaretz posts an article that calls for peace with Syria .. many readers repeat the same thing “How can we trust the Syrians who have no respect for international laws … or who are are in violation of UN resolutions?”

So, please believe me that I have no interest in scoring points against you in this discussion … I just want to address one potential obstacle after another. SO if I try to explain that Syria has been much more respectful of UN resolution than Israel, it is not to attack Israel, but to explain that it is not fair for Israelis to use this as a reason for refusing to sign an agreement with Syria.

Rime, was this walid Mouallem in that picture?

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

Now I understand why Rime is so harsh in her style. There must be (understandably) great frustration in her family, perhaps even greater than most Syrians’, especially because her father worked so hard at trying to reach his country’s legitimate goals. Rime, I don’t claim there’s hatred in your words, I claim your words are offensive to such extent that no Israeli (even ones that agree with you) would be willing to listen. If your goal is to speak out to fellow Syrians, and to urge them to be “less tepid” in their approach, then surely you’re doing everything you can to achieve that goal. But you also wish to speak out to Israelis, then I’m afraid your approach is as close to absolute ineffectiveness as one could be. Since it seems you’re unable (or unwilling) to understand this criticism from me, an Israeli, I suggest you ask fellow Syrian friends what they think about your approach vis-a-vis Israelis. A lot of writers on this blog spoke harshly of Israel, expressed anger and frustration and distrust, and perhaps even hatred. But they did so in a manner which enabled a dialogue. And we exchanged views, and in some cases even “warmed up” to each other enough to show some empathy. Without dialogue, there is little chance that action will take place on the ground. The mutual barriers of fear and distrust must begin to break down, first in dialogue, then in action.

Alex, I understand why you brought up the security council resolutions. I don’t subscribe to accusations of the “how can we trust you?” type. My answer to anyone that asks ME that, is “what choice do you have?” Because if we had a choice, we wouldn’t be talking to each other in this blog, would we?

Mr. Israeli Says:

Rime,

We Israelis have been (and still are) committing horrific crimes against Arabs. Most of us know it, some of us deny it. Most of us also want to end it, but don’t know how. It’s not that we don’t know how to pull APC’s out of Ramallah, or army bases off the Golan. We don’t know how to get rid of our very-real and innate sense of fear and distrust of Arabs. I know and understand why it is so difficult for you to accept that this could be the case. It seems like the perfect excuse for land-greedy zionists to throw all about in order NOT to make peace. I cannot hope to convince you that my fears are real, because you find them baseless and absurd.

I understand your anger and frustration in the notion that the world is buying into this “poor Israel” trickery and manipulation, and that any agreement must start with “… recognizing Israel’s right to exist”, while it is very much the Palestinians who deserve this long overdue recognition. But as much as I truly do agree with so much of what you say, I cannot find any way where an attitude of “Let Israel prove… it deserves to be treated as the civilized equal it pretends to be” would work. In a court of law, a judge may very well demand that Israel first prove to the Arabs, then receive, but we’re in a court with no judge that can enforce anything upon the parties. Israel is indeed the stronger side which, unfortunately, means it has more leverage and will get more of what it wants (for instance, no reciprocal demilitarization off the Golan – Israel will most likely have far better army positions than Syria). There is an obvious absurd here, but such is life. You’ll have to ask yourself whether you’re interested in peace enough to accept these absurds. The same goes for a right-of-return to all Palestinians. There is no way that most will be able to return to Haifa, or Jaffa, Ramla, or Lod. So will a truly just peace be made? No. Does that mean we should forget the whole thing, until Israel is forced to accept all the conditions? I’d like to think not, simply because the alternative is far worse, for all sides.

Rime, you’re obviously a well-educated, well-versed, and all-in-all a logical and rational human being. You’re also terribly devoted to doing justice for your people, and for others that are oppressed in our region. What you’re doing is right, I respect it, and thank god for the Arabs that there are people like you that are willing to fight for justice. But please understand my comments above regarding the manner by which you make your criticism heard. It cannot do much except for alienate Israelis further. Find the way to say the same thing differently, without sugar-coating, but in a way that will make us able to listen to you. After all, it is not just “your side” you wish to address. I imagine you want Israelis to hear you just as much.

Rime Says:

Mr. Israeli, we’ve been going around in circles, so let’s summarize: you basically agree with me about Israel’s crimes againt Arabs, and particularly Palestinians, you agree that I am talking about justice and fairness, etc. But you object to my “harsh tone” and wish I (and we) would speak softly (which I don’t do with the regime either) and pray that Israel hears our cries. Which would be the exact opposite of what I was advocating in the article. :)

Mr. Israeli Says:

Rime,
Going in circles is sometimes better than plunging straight-ahead, especially when emotions are involved, and you’re not sure how the other side is going to perceive or receive you. Although a thousand times different, a relationship between a man and a woman starts off with dating, not with a prenuptial agreement… :-) I’m sure you’ve noticed more (and respected) those corporate leaders that in meetings speak softly than those that yell. You can say the strongest words and achieve so much more, when you say things the right way. What’s the use of having a doctorate in quantum-mechanics, being an expert in your field, advisor to the largest corporations, a regular on international media, if you still don’t know how to teach your students what you know? It’s ALWAYS about HOW with people, rarely about WHAT. Still, I wish you all the luck with convincing the right people. I’ve had to go about it the hard way with you, but I’m not sure most people could, or would… :-)

Alex Says:

Rime and Mr. Israeli

Why don’t you both admit that the exceptionally capable Alex : ) nailed it few days ago when he suggested that Syria should take into account the 180 degree variance in Israeli opinions and attitudes which could only be accommodated through an adaptive, continuously variable communication style… different messages must be sent to try to positively influence each type of Israeli citizen who today does not believe that his country should, or needs to, return the Golan to Syria.

Which is what I hoped to demonstrate through this exercise.

Maybe, each of the 19 posts on this page has a message that can, and will be, useful … we need to start by knowing that we are communicating with many different sub-groups .. not to one homogeneous group of “Israelis”

Just look at Israel’s coalition government to know who you need to talk to and how. You think Syria should talk to these Israelis the same way it talks to this one?

For Israelis who complain that Assad “speaks out of both sides of his mouth” … in a way, that’s right … because he needs to address both the overly insecure, and the bullies .. and every type in between.

Finally, Mr. Israeli … in the real Riyadh (not the 1 or 2), a relationship between a man and a woman supposedly only starts with the man asking for her hand from her father, sometimes before he meets her.

OK that was an unnecessary joke : ) … any KSA fans here?

Rime Says:

Any KSA fans ANYWHERE?

Mr. Israeli Says:

Dear Alex,

Thank you for that clarification regarding the KSA. It is, of course, a degrading custom that is exercised in many cultures, including Judaism as you probably know (ultra-orthodox). By the way, I don’t have any particular desire to see Israelis in Riyadh (1,2, or 15). It just happens that it was there, and in Beirut in 2002, that an Arab summit essentially nullified the Khartoum Conference’s famous “3 No’s” of 1967. I personally find it extremely meaningful, and as strong a gesture as one could hope for, from the Arab world to Israel, towards peace. Unfortunately, too many politicians here decided to ignore it. Historians will undoubtedly judge them wrong, yet again.

You’re probably aware that Israeli media ever since last summer’s war in Lebanon has been discussing our almost-innate ability to miss opportunities. As horrible as things are right now for the Palestinians, and as we see things really ARE terrible, there might be an opportunity here which Israel should take advantage of. Incidentally, I’m not at all sure that it is Mahmoud Abbas that we should talk to (or strengthen), it might even be the Hamas itself, as illogical as that might sound. But the picture is changing dramatically, and we’ll see which way the wind will blow, so to speak. Of course, we might again miss the opportunity… and have to either await a regional summit which many are suggesting, or worse, engage in yet another regional conflict of some sort. But as we sit here typing away into our fancy wireless-capable laptops, 1.5 million Palestinians are worried about the bread supply holding up for perhpas another 7-10 days, not more. I hope Israel will at least find the way to supply the basic needs of the population right away. I hope Hamas won’t get in the way, willing to hurt its own brethren, in order to prove yet-again the demonic and inhumane side of the zionist regime.

Rime, what do you think is the future of the KSA, Kuwait, Yemen, and perhaps other “moderately”-religious states that only go as far as allowing women to drive? What will it take for their citizens to truly enjoy freedom of rights? I’m not even talking about dictatorships…

Rime Says:

Mr. Israeli, I don’t have much hopes that things will improve on that front. The Saudis are relying more and more on the fanatical Wahhabis to reign in any semblance of “dissidence” (be it “moral” or political) with their repugnant “mutaween” walking around with sticks to punish anyone not falling into line. It is truly outrageous that this should be allowed until today.

Unfortunately, I think that the instability in the region has made more and more people accept the “lesser evil” of the status quo wherever they are, rather than take the risk of ending up like Iraq. Of course, every Arab regime absolutely loves this kind of either-or equation. In the Saudi case in particular, there are even more issues at stake, including the oil-rich areas falling mostly in the “wrong” type of people: the Shia. There’s lots to say about Saudi, but this wasn’t your question.

You know, in spite of their tchadors, ironically, Iranian women are right now light years ahead of most other Gulf women. Yes, more and more women have their own businesses nowadays, and the UAE even have a woman minister – Economy and Planning, no less – but I don’t think this kind of exposure trickles down to the population or translates into greater participation in the economy. In contrast, in countries like Syria where agriculture makes up a significant part of GDP, women are as much a part of the economy as men. I must reluctantly recognize that the Baath at least ensured that Syrian women’s relative freedoms were not threatened. It is in the family status laws (based on shari’a mostly) where it is difficult to make changes without ruffling feathers. By the way, did you know that most of the laws still in effect are remnants of the Ottoman system?

That said, a caveat is in order: in spite of the huge obstacles they face socio-economically, it would be a mistake to think that women in this region do not influence the affairs of society, in their own indirect way. But that applies to all societies I guess.

Yazan Says:

Rime,
I dont wanna shift the conversation here to Saudi arabia, but I do have different view on what’s going on there.
You see, Mom is a doctor, she’s been working there for a couple of years now, and given that both my parents are still over-enthusiastic-marxists with a serious history in hizb el-3amal, I find myself compelled to trust what they tell me of life there.

My dad, does not pray, he has made it clear that he was an active communist, and it was quite clear that they are from the “el-Sahel el-Souri”, and they have not been given the least different treatment on the professional level, and even though they live in a not-so-big city, not even from the social [given that you can call it social] surrounding. As far as my dad has told me, [In relative terms ofcourse], The saudi as a people are the real blocking force against reforms, not the state [reforms as a relative term again]. And it makes sense.

Alex Says:

Yazan,

I think Saudi Arabia is a potential future trouble spot. Half the Saudis are looking forward to reforms and American and western ideas. The other half want to go back to the “perfect” state their people experienced at the early days of Islam.

Saudi Arabia is not easily reformable … it would have to be done over 25 years at least. Otherwise, there might be a serious clash.

Rime Says:

Given that Alex keeps wanting to give even Syria yet another 7 years every 7 years, I’m surprised you think Saudi only needs 25! :)

Yazan, many thanks for this personal feedback. I think we don’t disagree, because you’re saying the people are against reform, and I said many people are now preferring the devil they know, or the lesser evil of the status quo. That said, it doesn’t take away from the role of the fanatical Wahhabis, the impossibility of practicing a religion other than Islam, or none at all (which, as you showed in your example, is not something that comes from the people themselves), the ridiculous restrictions on male-female gatherings, and all the other limits on personal freedom, etc. Nor does it take away from the regimes taking advantage of this situation. Would you agree?

Mr. Israeli Says:

Rime, Yazan, Alex,

Since we’re talking a bit about the KSA (which I recognize you don’t exactly have a “love affair” with), what is your take on why it may have had behind-the-scene, possibly direct, contact with Israel? Not to mention the Saudi-plan as of recent. What interest do they have in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ending with possibly two democratic, mostly-secular states? Are they hoping that Hamas will control the Palestinian state, and convert it (by force) into an Islamic Republic? What is in fact the future of this region as long as the fanatics are alowed to continue to grow and strengthen?

What do you think Israel should do at this moment, with what is starting to seem like a real Palestinian civil-war taking place? Aside from serious humanitarian support to Gaza (which I believe we’ve started doing yesterday), what sort of contact should we have with Abu Mazen? If we show him too much support, that could weaken him in the long run. If we remain “out of the equation”, the Fatah could become too weak to withstand Hamas even in the West Bank. How do you see this crisis playing out? I’m not terribly optimistic about the upcoming “summit” in Sharem. That place has seen too many missed opportunities, that I think it should be officially banned by all parties from ever hosting peace talks… I’d rather meet in Amman.

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

“Saudi Arabia” is like “Israel” … a frequently confused country, thanks to the conflicting aspirations of its citizens and its centers of power.

They have some of the smartest and most decent figures in the Middle East, such as foreign minister Saud Al-faisal and His brother Turki al-Faisal. Even King Abdullah is not too bad. But there are a lot of fanatic lunatics as well.

They are always trying to balance their regional (and domestic) policies in a way that will satisfy both the younger Saudi professional who graduated from MIT, and the stubborn, close minded wahabi that Rime mentioned.

As for Saudi’s role in Palestinian affairs, the motivations are as follows:

1) Boosting Saudi Arabia’s regional role … I mentioned earlier that “a role” is something very prestigious among the larger Arab countries. What ever you do, don’t prevent Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia from playing a role.

When one of the three Arab countries expands its role, the other two will go out trying to reclaim their share of the action.

So, after Syrian allies Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and after Syrian allies HA “defeated the Israeli Army”, and after Syrian predictions that the United States will slowly lose the Iraq war (Syria being the only Arab country to seriously oppose he US role in Iraq), the impression was that Syria (with Iran behind it) is on the offensive … playing too big a role at the expense of the other two leaders of the Arab world.

So King Abdullah reversed his earlier decision to NOT host the next Arab summit, and he invited the Palestinian leaders to Mecca, and agreed to talk to the Iranians to try to solve Lebanon’s problems with out involving Syria.

2) Besides the semi-serious part above, I think King Abdullah genuinely wants to stop the bloodshed. He looks like relatively decent man (Most politicians are not very decent of course)

3) President Bush (and his secretary of stae) asked the Saudis for a favor .. to try to score a success for hte “Arab moderates” … at the time there was pressure on President Bush to accept the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton group. Talking to Syria was one recommendation president Bush hated to recognize. He felt he can manage to only implement the other recommendation of the group in which they suggested that in order to succeed in Iraq, you need to make progress in Palestine.

So, the Saudis were asked to show their effective leadership skills.

But if you want to know what to expect, as an Israeli, from the Saudis … it depends who has the upper hand … the modern ones or the wahabis. You might like the Saudis or you might hate them… time will tell.

For example, I think King Abdullah will not risk accepting any solution that does not return “Jerusalem”. His people will not allow it.

That by itself will make it difficult to reach an agreement with Israel.

Also, the Saudis are always criticized for being American tools or American agents … etc. They will certainly not dare to give credibility to such accusations by being one of the first to open up to Israel… not in public.

Of course in private, Prince Bandar is already your occasional ally. But that can not go too far. You can agree with SOME Saudis to launch war on Lebanon, but reaching a final settlement will be more difficult than what you think.

Finally, one good thing about the Saudis and Qataris and other rich arabs … they will accept to finance some of the costs of Israel’s eventual settlements with Syria and the Palestinians.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

Thank you for the information regarding the Saudis. I had a feeling that was the case and, hopefully, there will be enough “reformed”-wahabis in the future that will lead the rest into supporting whatever the monarchs choose as their path. By the way, you mentioned that “…King Abdullah will not risk accepting any solution that does not return ??Jerusalem?…” I do hope you understand that most Israelis have begun accepting the idea of a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem. Many a politicians, from almost the entire spectrum have already discussed the idea of separating East and West Jerusalem… unfortunately. If you ask me, there could have been no greater demonstration of hope for peace in this world than having Jerusalem become a duo-capital for two nations, Israel and Palestine, with half Israelis and half Palestinians controlling the city municipality (rotating mayorship, etc.), and inviting the U.N. to have its world headquarters there! Talk about the effect that could have on the three major religions.

From what A-Zahar says today of Hamas’s abilities to fight the Fatah in the W. Bank using missiles (Kassams) like they do against Israel, this doesn’t seem like we’re anywhere near a cease-fire. How on earth does Hamas think it can exist in such isolation? There is no way Israel will allow Hamas to also take over the W. Bank, it definitely WILL intervene militarily in favor of Fatah, if its existence was threatened. So at best, Hamas can hope for maintaining control of Gaza, but then sooner or later Israel will close off all entrances/exists aside for its border with Egypt. That will mean that Hamas will have to persuade Egypt (and anyone else) to supply Gaza with the basic humanitarian needs, but what about everything else? How can the Palestinians exist in Gaza in such isolation? For the time being, unless Hamas starts showering Israel with Kassams, I don’t see Israel getting too involved in Gaza. It seems to be in our best interest to allow the Palestinians to see the “true face” of Hamas, by letting them run the show. A recent poll apparently shows 66% of Palestinians want a foreign military presence in Gaza – excpet that Hamas will never allow that to happen… So what’s going to happen then? Any guess?

Alex Says:

By the way, not all the monarchs are moderate and “good”. There are many in the royal family who are active supporters of Wahabis and other extremists, in Saudi Arabia and outside. Ben Laden is an extreme case, but there are many others who also “support” organizations that you will not like at all.

Some Monarchs (the ones I listed) are good, not all.

As for Hamas and Fatah … I don’t think anyone knows what will happen (your question), but judging from our past experience with the endless attempts to boost elements in the Arab world that look like they are “moderates” and to boycott of fight the “nationalists” or the “terrorists” who happen to be very popular, it just does not work. Remember when George Shultz tried in the early 80’s to pass the May17th peace treaty between “Lebanon” and Israel? .. a treaty that was signed by a subset of Lebanese Maronites who were America’s friends. That did not work too well. Remember the Oslo agreement? … the road map? …

The correct way of reading that poll is:

Even after Hamas did a very controversial move in Gaza (Spilling Palestinian blood) .. it still has 33% who can live with that action, or support that action.

You can not ignore 33% of those Palestinians… they are quite active as you know.

Think of the 33% as the losest point in support for Hamas, once president Bush and Israel clearly take the side of Fatah, Hamas regains popularity and Abbas loses credibility.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Clearly for Israel to support Abbas would only weaken him. We’ve seen that time and again, which is why I believe Israel is trying to play it “safe”. The upcoming summit in Sharem will probably reap very little fruit (peace-process-wise), but the question still remains – what will become of Gaza, and/or the Palestinian state as a whole? How can we advance the Palestinian cause, if they are physically and politically split in two? Who or what can change that now? Any foreign intervention will strengthen Hamas even further as you mention. So what about Arab intervention? Will any Arab nation “dare” intervene by placing troops in Gaza? Egypt has already begun moving its embassy from Gaza to Ramallah…

Funny enough, did you know that Bibi Netanyahu just the other day suggested a Jordanian-Palestinian Brigade should be allowed into the W. Bank to help support the Fatah. Is he smelling victory in a possible upcoming election? Hmmm… I don’t know. But he got bashed for it inside his Likud party, mostly by his only potential adversary, Silvan Shalom. I have a feeling, though, that if tomorrow we did have elections, and up for the top-post were Olmert, Barak, and Netanyahu, the latter would win quite easily. The country is fed up with the center-left coalition. Like in table-tennis, it’s now the other side’s turn to serve… But, I may be wrong.

Like I’ve been telling some of my close friends, I’m not sure that Bibi is not the BEST representative of the left’s agenda. He can probably deliver everything I want much better than Barak or Olmert, simply because when he sits down at the negotiating table, he KNOWS he has the majority of Israelis behind him. I have a very strong suspicion that he wouldn’t mind being the first one to shake Bashar’s hand at the Presidential Palace in Damascus. Or the first to shake 22 Arab leaders’ hands in the White House, signing a regional peace treaty with them all… Although he talks tough (mainly to keep his constituents happy), he knows that he’d much rather go down in history as a Begin than as a Shamir.

How do Syrians view Bibi? Has their view changed over the years? And how do they view Barak today? I read that the Syrians are hoping Barak will be the one to negotiate with them, which would mean that negotiations would not start at square one, but more likely from where they left off 7 years ago.

Alex Says:

It is not easy to like Bibi : )

But this is none of our business.

I prefer Barak. He also can deliver to same degree that Bibi can deliver. At the end it will be the mood of the majority of Israelis that will decide if we have peace or not, regardless of who is the prime minister, Bibi or Barak.

But with Bibi, it will be not easy. He will need to smoothly go through the theatrics of slowly moving from his current ultra-hard line position (to the liking of his Likud supporters) all the way towards accepting UN 242’s land for peace based on 1967.

That’s a long way to go … it will be painful for negotiators to start from Bibi’s initial position that Israel does not want to return large parts of the Golan.

Then if he reaches the stage where “the known price for peace with Syria” has to be put through a referendum, I can imagine Bibi’s position will be: “I am not comfortable with the terms of the painful terms settlement but if the Israeli people vote for it, I will have to accept it”. I don’t know how effective such a position would be if we want the Israeli people to be convinced of the merits of the agreement.

I know Rime is not too impressed with Barak, but I hope he learned from last time when he was too worried about losing the next elections if he gave Syria back the full Golan … he lost those elections anyway.

AND .. I don’t think Bibi will have a large majority if he is elected … I know Israelis miss Sharon’s decisive style, but I can’t see bibi’s Likud getting 50% or more of the seats.

As for Gaza … there is no easy solution .. the options are:

1) Support Abbas … again.

2) Try to manage things and make sure they don’t go out of control.

3) Start preparing for Madrid 2 … without excluding any of the major forces on the ground.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

First, Likud doesn’t need 50% to form the government, it only needs more than Kadima or Labour. There is a good chance that many in Kadima will return to the Likud in the next elections, and unfortunately people are just getting fed up with what’s going on in Labour. That is the nature of politics here in Israel, which is a way is good, that when the current ruling party doesn’t deliver, we automatically consider their rival next time around, even if we don’t “love” their basic philosophies.

You’re right about Israelis searching for the Rabin or Sharon-style decisiveness in a leader. But there really aren’t any to pick from. I’m afraid that I don’t believe you can teach old dogs new tricks, and since Barak failed before, mainly because of his style, I doubt he has “learned his lessons” from the past 7 years of doing business and making some 30 million shekels. I would say quite the contrary, when you have such successful years, you tend to be reinforced in your way of thinking and acting.

As for your option 3 in dealing with Gaza (preparing for Madrid 2), you say not to exclude any of the major forces on the ground – does that include Hamas? Who will represent the Palestinians in such a summit? You see, that’s the problem now – who does anyone talk to?

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

Palestinians can be convinced to have one negotiating team if the mentality of “let’s back ONLY the Arab moderates” is finally retired. Arabs are not all “moderates” … at least not in the silly definition of that word (America’s friend).

To me it is obvious. every time America backs new initiatives based on excluding the Arabs which are not to their liking, then we can kiss the next few months goodbye… at best, nothing will happen, at worst, something bad will happen after they get frustrated that the “moderates” could not deliver because the “non-moderates” are closer to reality on the Arab street.

But what can one expect from an American administration that was preparing a stupid crook (Mr. Ghadry!) to become Syria’s next president after they succeed in installing democracy in Iraq!

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

I agree 100% with you about not choosing your negotiating partner. Just like Arafat did not choose Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak, or Sharon, neither can we choose Abu Mazen, or Ismayil Haniyah for that matter. I have no problems sitting with Hamas, or Fatah, or even Khaled Mashal. Inevitably, it is ex-bitter-enemies that have to sit together, both with blood on their hands, who are ready to finally wash them clean, for the sake of their people’s future. Israel should NOT interfere in any way in what goes on within the Palestinian territories, including in a situation (hopefully not) where Hamas manages to overthrow all Fatah controlled institutions in the West Bank as well. The problem seems to be now, that Hamas refuses to negotiate with Israel period. It does not recognize Israel, and still probably believes it can, given enough time and God’s support, throw us into the sea… How can an “infidel state” negotiate with an “islamic one”? So my hope is that most Palestinians will read through the so-called new reality of “finally quiet-on-the-streets of Gaza”, and realize that it is not in their best interest to become a Mediterranean Islamic Republic. Instead, they should of course enable the Hamas to be represented politically, in a democratic fashion, but not support it so overwhelmingly like it did in the previous elections. I believe that most Palestinians would NOT have voted for Hamas had the Fatah not been so corrupt. I guess many (if not most) of the tens of thousands of Fatah institution employees are still around, and probably have NOT changed their ways, and the people on the street can see that.

By the way, it is a question that’s been on my mind for a long time, regarding a slightly similar situation in Syria. From what I understand, there is widespread corruption in Syria as well (perhaps understandably when state employees earn $100 a month…) In what way is it in those people’s interest to make peace with Israel, if the assumption is that sooner or later, regional democracies could influence the way the regimes around them exercise their power? And if indeed the system in Syria is corrupt, how can a corrput system undo itself? How can it be expected to offer the people a “true” opportunity to replace it (like in a democracy)? And, if the only way to replace such a system is by force, then how stable is any agreement we may have with Syria? There are obvious advantages to a totalitarian ruling system, but like in the USSR, when the wall came crumbling down, so did everything else with it. Although there was a relatively quiet revolution there, who says the same would happen in Syria?

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli, our next discussion topic (July’s) will deal with Syrian reform. You will get the answer to your question through the many different opinions of the participants of our forum.

For now though, Peace with Egypt still allowed Mubarak to remain in power and to prepare his son to take over.

It is a mistake to assume that action A will lead to result B. God knows how an Israeli Syrian peace treaty will impact the political System in Syria.

But since the Syrian system did not change since 1970, I guess it is as solid as you need it to be.

As for corruption … I believe that it will take decades to deal with it … it is the result of decades of mistakes and bad environmental (regional) influences … I have no high hopes for an immediate fix … I just hope we see small but consistent improvements.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex, I will wait patiently until the July discussion topic is up. I did not, however, suggest that any political change would necessarily occur within Syria soon after a peace agreement is signed. In Egypt’s case, it was never a prerequisite, nor something to be expected, that with the opening of the doors towards Israelis, democracy would suddenly “flow in” and wash out any old “ruling styles”. In our region, as far as I can see, Israel is the closest thing to democracy, though obviously has its own undemocratic problems as well. In any case, I don’t have any grandiose illusions about impacting this way or the other upon any of the peoples or nations around us. Certainly in countries where the rulers have little interest in establishing a democracy, things are bound to change slowly. By the way, using “environmental (regional) influences” is a very poor excuse in my eyes, and it has been used not only by Syrians and other Arabs, but also by Israelis, when trying to explain all the things that are wrong about the country. The biggest excuse for not doing things right (allocating enough to education, social security, business-development, environment, etc.) has for the past 60 years been the “security situation”. When someone in the IAF thought they needed an extra 50 F-15i’s, it didn’t matter that this new budget would have to come out of somewhere… it was always done. So I don’t buy this “regional influences” excuse anymore… sorry! It gave your leaders and mine the ability to run the show any way they saw fit, and to blame our hardships on others, anyone other than themselves.

Alex Says:

Mr. Israeli,

ok, I will be more specific about “regional influences” on corruption in Syria.

1) After the October 1973 war when Syria did relatively well (recovering most of he Golan before Egypt stopped fighting) the rich Arabs wanted to thank Syria and its leaders … and to make them their allies. So they used to come to Damascus with bags of cash! … they knew that part of that cash will end up in some leaders’ personal bank accounts, and they wanted it this way.

Now they don’t do that anymore .. they prefer to buy Arab journalists. Cheaper and more effective.

2) After Syria got into Lebanon … the smart Lebanese businessmen offered Syrian officers in Lebanon a cut from their profits if they facilitated those transactions. And they did, … and then it became a habit for them to start taking commissions on transactions of major business deals when they can facilitate them in Syria too.

So in both cases, new was of corruption were introduced to Syria … and they stayed.

I am not excusing those who are corrupt in Syria … I just wanted to explain why regional influences did indeed enhance corruption in Syria.

But the more important point, about Israel’s democracy affecting its neighbors:

For now, it is as repulsive as American calls for democracy, after all the bad things that both Israel and the United States are doing in the region.

BUT … if in the future Israel does indeed turn into a peaceful country that respects Arabs’ right just as it respects Israeli rights, then I am sure there will be tremendous pressure on Arab leaders to match Israeli democracy.

There is a potential for Israel to be a good influence on the middle East … Look at Nasrallah and how he expressed his respect for Israel after an independent committee exposed your prime minister’s mistakes in the recent Lebanon war … When Israel does something respectable, Arab people notice it.

Mr. Israeli Says:

Alex,

I think you’re right about the potential influence, though again, I’m not counting on it, nor creating any demands of any of our neighbours. I believe that internal changes should happen from within, with as little external influence as possible, and certainly not by an ex-enemy.

By the way, don’t think that Israel isn’t corrupt. It is easier to list the MP’s that AREN’T under investigation than the ones that are… At least here, however, we know that there ARE investigations that take place, that these politicians COULD be held accountable for their actions, and that a court of justice will determine their fate, not one leader or another. Having said that, notice the huge waves of anti-judicial-system that have errupted in the past few days over the Chief Advisor’s decision to reach a plea-bargain with our ex-President, who may very well have raped a number of his ex-assistants in the past, and will now get away with it, with no prison sentence whatsoever, and a miniscule cash-compensation to two of the women. The country is in shock over this episode, and the supreme court now has to decide whether it overturns the decision or not.

Interesting article came out today in Haaretz (also in English) by Uri Bar-Yosef about the “return of the misconception” regarding the possibility of war with Syria. I hope he is wrong, and that contrary to the outward signals given by Olmert and his administration, that secret talks of substance are taking place at the highest levels. If not, then I’m afraid he may be right, and we may be in for another regional war in the near future. Sad part is, that we already know how this war ends, it is only the price that we’re unsure of. And, chances are, we would underestimate the heavy toll, on all sides, and as always find ourselves looking backwards in time some 10 years from now, saying “so why did we waste all that time and human lives, if we knew already what had to be done years ago???” And on that cheerful note…

SyriaComment - Syrian politics, history, and religion » Archives » Will Syria and Israel talk, fight or wait? Says:

[...] is part of Rime Allaf's opinion she expressed in her article: This is not about relative degrees of compromise, or [...]

lokimikoj Says:

Hello

Your site is very cognitive. I think you will have good future.:)

IsraeliGuy Says:

I find it extremely ironic that sometimes the most uncompromising, hard line “Arab Patriots”, choose to live in the most cozy and spoiling western capitals.

Isn’t it great, preaching for fellow Arabs for non compromising, resisting the aggressors and not giving up on any Arab interest, while living the good life in Switzerland, Austria, the US and the UK.

“Stand up for Palestine”, they shout, while ordering another Cappuccino in a trendy London cafe.

dashton dietrick Says:

great points on travel. I Look forward to reading more here in the future.

Leave a Reply

« Return to Main Page