Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

Political Roundup

The Syria -Israel Talks

The Syria-Israel talks will resume on 3 January in Washington. The first round of talks between the two sides ended on 16 December and the America president said at the time that the two parties had agreed to return to Washington to resume their negotiations. He also mentioned that the two sides had agreed to exhaust all possible efforts in order to achieve peace between them as part of a fair, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle-East, based on the two United Nations resolutions, 338 and 242 and on the Madrid Conference. Clinton said that with the start of the Syria-Israel talks and with the prospect of the Israeli-Lebanese talks resuming soon, coupled with the continuance of the talks on the Palestinian track, which had started a while back, it would be possible to concentrate on a new and different Middle-East; he however stressed that this process would be difficult.
 
Madelaine Albright for her part, stressed that everyone realised that the path was not easy and that there were four issues in these talks to be addressed, namely withdrawal, mutual security, the significance of peace and the timetable.

Before the start of the talks, the America president sent a message to the Israeli people in which he said: “The peace that serves the interests of all parties concerned is the only way to achieve a real peace for the people of Israel and to make the people of Israel surrounded by a ring of peace.
 
As for Syria, Clinton said: “President Assad realises what real peace can achieve in terms of improving the standard of living of his people.” He also addressed the America people by saying: “A comprehensive peace in the Middle-East is a vital issue for the world and for the security of the America people. Tension and escalation in the Middle-East could lead to an American intervention whose price would be higher than any price that America may pay for the sake of achieving peace.”

As for the Syrian foreign minister, he stressed that peace for Syria means the return of all her lands that had been occupied in 1967, and to Israel, it means the end of the psychological fear in which the Israelis live. He added: “Everyone realises that a peace deal between Syria and Israel and peace deal between Israel and Lebanon will mean in fact for the Middle-East the end of a history of wars and conflicts.”

The outline of these statements, especially the statement of Faruq Al-Shara’a, that a deal between Syria and Israel and between Lebanon and Israel would signal the end of the wars and the conflicts in the region, despite his failure to mention the Palestinian track and the Palestinian issue, and his perception that it is the core of the Middle-East issue, and the statement of the American president that peace between Syria and Israel would be part of a fair, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle-East, denotes that there will be no peace agreement between Syria and Israel before a final solution is reached on the Palestinian track.

The American Secretary of State stressed during a press conference held on 16 December 1999 that she, Barak and Al-Shara’a had talked at length about the importance of the Palestinian track and about the importance of keeping all the tracks on course, and that the Israeli prime minister had clearly outlined the need for these tracks to proceed according to their specific dynamics, provided that none of the tracks should proceed at the expense of another track.

Therefore, the talk about the possibility of reaching a peace agreement between Syria and Israel within few months could only mean one thing: that science for the two parties to declare a host of principles which would act as a first step towards a peace treaty to be announced in due time.

This declaration of principles will signal the end of the state of war between the two sides and the end of the state of war between Israel and Lebanon. This will enable Israel to begin withdrawing her forces from south Lebanon. Consequently, Ehud Barak will achieve what he had promised the Israelis during his electoral campaign, namely the withdrawal of the Israeli army before next June.
 
If this issue occurred, i.e. the declaration of principles, will be a resemblance of what had been concluded between Israel and Jordan when king Hussein met Issac Rabin in the White House and declared the end of the state of war between the two sides, without however signing any agreement; then three months later, the Wadi Araba Treaty was signed.

As for the details of the Syrian track solution, most of its features had been clarified since the days of Rabin. They boil down to the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, with the Israeli demand to maintain a military presence in the Harmoun mountain which overlooks the Golan, and the presence of early warning signals systems to be staffed by Americans. Meanwhile Syria is demanding that that early warning systems should be placed inside Israel, according to the principle of equal treatment, and America is backing Syria with regard to this issue. Hence, when Madelaine Albright mentioned the four issues that need to be discussed, she made reference to the issue of mutual security.

The establishment of diplomatic relations between Syria and Israel, and maybe between Israel and most of the Arab states, will be the natural outcome to the signing of a peace treaty between the two sides, though some of the “Israeli analysts” expect the peace between Syria and Israel to be a cold peace, just like the peace between Egypt and Israel. Hence, they are demanding stringency with regard to the early warning systems and the water issues, and not to be content with the establishment of diplomatic relations and with the promise of normalisation of ties with Israel.

As for why the talks have resumed at this time despite the fact that there has been no significant progress on the Palestinian track, this is because the American president is in his final year at the White House and he wants to achieve a victory in foreign policy, to add it to his record and the record of the democratic party, which will enhance the chances of his deputy Al Gore in winning the next presidential elections.

America wishes also to enable her agent, the Syrian president Hafiz Assad, to transfer the reins of power to his son Bashar without any heavy political and economic burdens.
 
Meanwhile in “Israel”, the change that America occasioned in the concepts of the Israeli people, namely abandoning the idea of a greater Israel, and her undermining of the Israeli parties which held such a slogan, leading to the former Israeli premier to say that Zionism has folded its banners, has made the concepts of security for the people domestically and material affluence replace the slogans of “greater Israel” and the land of the forefathers.

Furthermore, the Israelis are not claiming any historical rights to the Golan Heights, for to them, their importance is merely for security reasons. Also, the human losses that Israel is suffering in south Lebanon and the huge financial rewards they had been promised if they withdrew from the Golan, will enable Ehud Barak to take the one step that other prime ministers could not achieve.
 
The Media Forum of Hizb ut-Tahrir

23 Ramadhan 1420   -  30 January 1999

www.hizbuttahrir.org