By Uri Avnery, 7.10.06
ONCE, WHILE traveling in a taxi, I had an argument with the driver - a profession associated in Israel with extreme right-wing views. I tried in vain to convince him of the desirability of peace with the Arabs. In our country, which has never seen a single day of peace in the last hundred years, peace can seem like something out of science fiction.
Suddenly I had an
inspiration. "When we have peace," I said, "You can take your
taxi in the morning and go to Damascus, have lunch there with real authentic
Hummus and come back home in the evening."
He jumped at the idea.
"Wow," he exclaimed, "If that happens, I shall take you with me
for nothing!"
"And I shall treat
you to lunch," I responded.
He continued to dream.
"If I could go to Damascus in my car, I could drive on from there all the
way to Paris!"
BASHAR AL-ASSAD has done
it again. He has succeeded in confusing the Israeli government.
As long as he voices the
ritual threat to liberate the Golan Heights by force, it does not upset
anybody. After all, that only confirms what many want to hear: that there is no
way to have peace with Syria, that sooner or later we shall have a war with
them.
Why is that good?
Simple: peace with Syria would mean giving back the Golan Heights (Syrian
territory by any definition). No peace, no need to give them back.
But when Bashar starts
to talk peace, we are in trouble. That is a sinister plot. It may, God forbid,
create a situation that would compel us to return the territory.
Therefore, we should not
even speak about it. The news must be buried in some remote corner of the
papers and at the end of the news on TV, as just "another speech of
Assad". The government rejects them "on the threshold", adding
that it cannot even be discussed until…
Until what? Until he
stops supporting Hizbullah. Until Syria expels the representatives of Hamas and
the other Palestinian organizations. Until regime change takes place in Syria.
Until a Western-style democracy is installed there. In short, until he
registers as a member of the Zionist organization.
THE RELATIONS between
Israel and Syria have a documented history of at least 2859 years. In the year
853 B.C. Israel is mentioned - for the first time, it seems - in an authentic
document outside the Bible. Twelve monarchs of the region, led by the kings of
Damascus and Israel, united against the
growing threat of Assyria, The decisive battle took place at Karkar (in the
north of today's Syria). According to an Assyrian document, 20 thousand
soldiers and 1200 chariots of Damascus fought side by side with 10 thousand
soldiers and 2000 chariots of Ahab, king of Israel. It is not quite clear which
side won.
But that was a temporary
alliance. For most of the time, Israel and Aram-Damascus fought against each
other for regional supremacy. Ahab died a hero's death in one of these wars
against Aram, just two years after the battle against the Assyrians.
In modern times, the
Syrians (although then still under French colonial rule) strenuously opposed
the Zionist enterprise right from the beginning. But they also opposed the
Palestinian national movement. That is grounded in history: in the Arabic
language, the name al-Sham ("the North"), as Syria is called,
includes the entire territory between Egypt and Turkey. Therefore, in Arab
consciousness, not only Lebanon, but Jordan, Palestine and Israel as well are
really part of Syria.
When Yasser Arafat
created the independent Palestinian national movement at the end of the
1950s, the Syrians demanded to be
acknowledged as the protectors of the Palestinian people. When he refused, the
Syrians threw the entire Palestinian leadership into prison. (Only the wife of
Abu Jihad, Intissar al-Wazir, remained at liberty and took over the command of
the Fatah fighters - thus becoming the first woman in modern times to command
an Arab fighting force.)
Naturally, all the
enemies of Arafat found refuge in Damascus, and that is the original reason for
the presence of some leaders of Hamas and other organizations there. They were
more of a threat to the PLO than to Israel.
IN THE 1948 war, the
Syrian army was the only Arab army that was not defeated. They continued to
occupy some Israeli territory. Along this border, many incidents took place
(mostly initiated by an officer by the name of Ariel Sharon). In the end, the
Israeli army occupied the Golan Heights in the Six-day war, for the outbreak of
which Syria bears some responsibility.
Since then, all the
relations between Israel and Syria have been centered on this occupied
territory. Its return is a paramount Syrian aim. Israel has applied Israeli law
there (which, contrary to the accepted view, means less than annexation). Hafez
al-Assad re-conquered it in the 1973 war, but in the end was pushed back to the
approaches of Damascus. Since then, the Syrians have been trying to harass
Israel mostly by means of Hizbullah.
Once upon a time, the
idea of an "Eastern Front" - a coordinated attack by Jordan, Syria
and Iraq - used to cause nightmares in Israel. The prophecy of Jeremiah (1,
14), "Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants
of the land", echoed through the war-rooms of the army High Command. Since
then we have made peace with Jordan, Iraq has been blown to smithereens by the
Americans, with the enthusiastic support of Israel and its American lobby. But
the Syrians are still considered a menace, because they are allied with Iran
and connected with Hizbullah.
Is it worthwhile for us
to live in this situation in order to keep the Golan Heights? Common sense says
no. If we reach a peace agreement with Syria, it will automatically entail an
agreement with Hizbullah, too. Without Syrian consent, Hizbullah cannot keep an
efficient military force, since practically all Hizbullah's arms have to come
from Syria or pass through Syria. Without Syrian support, Hizbullah will become
a purely Lebanese party and cease to constitute a threat to us.
Moreover, Syria is a
thoroughly secular country. When the Muslim Brotherhood rebelled against Assad
Sr, he drowned them in blood. Also, the great majority of Syrians are Sunni.
When Syria makes peace with Israel, it will have no reason to remain allied
with the fanatical Shiite Iran.
So why don't we make
peace with Syria?
AT THIS time, there are
two reasons: the one domestic, the other foreign.
The domestic reason is
the existence of 20 thousand settlers on the Golan Heights, who are far more
popular than the West Bank settlers. They are not religious fanatics, and their
settlements were set up under the auspices of the Labor Party. All Israeli
governments have been afraid to touch them.
That is the real reason
for the failure of all the attempts to negotiate with Syria. Yitzhak Rabin
thought about it and drew back. He argued that we should first of all concentrate
on settling the Palestinian issue. Ehud Barak almost came to an agreement with
Syria, but escaped at the last moment. The only question that remained open was
almost ludicrous: should the Syrians reach the shoreline of the Sea of Tiberias
(the situation prevailing before the Six-day war) or stay at a distance of a
few dozen meters (according to the border fixed between the British, then
ruling Palestine, and the French, then ruling Syria). In popular parlance: will
Assad dangle his long feet in the water of the lake? For Assad Sr. that was a
question of honor.
Is it worthwhile to risk
for this the lives of thousands of Israelis and Syrians, who may die in another
war?
Until Israel has a
government ready to answer this question and to confront the settlers, there
will be no agreement with Syria.
The second reason for
rejecting peace with Syria is connected with the United States. Syria belongs
to George Bush's "axis of evil". The American president doesn't give
a damn for the long-range interests of Israel, what is important to him is to
achieve some sort of victory in the Middle East. The destruction of the Syrian
regime ("a victory for democracy") will compensate him for the Iraq
fiasco.
No Israeli government -
and certainly not that of Olmert - would dare to disobey the American
president. Therefore, it is self-evident that all peace feelers from Assad will
be rejected "on the threshold". Tsipi Livni, who last week opened a
new front against Olmert and presented herself almost as a peace-lover, opposes
the start of negotiations with Syria as well.
THIS AFFAIR throws some
light on the complex relations between Israel and the United States: who is
wagging who - does the dog wag its tail or the tail its dog?
Olmert says that we must
ignore Assad's peace offers, because we must not help him to escape Bush's
wrath. Let's dwell on this utterance for a moment.
An Israeli patriot
would, of course, have said exactly the opposite: If Assad is ready to make
peace with us - even if only because he is afraid of the Americans - we should jump at this opportunity and
exploit this situation to achieve at long last peace on our northern front.
Last week Olmert made a
remarkable declaration: "As long as I am Prime Minister, we shall not give
up the Golan for all eternity!" What does that mean? Either Olmert
believes that his term of office coincides with God's term of office, and he
will rule in eternity - or in Olmert's world, eternity extends to four years,
at most.
Anyhow, until then, my
taxi-driver and I shall have to wait for our lunch in Damascus.