|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 4, 2008 / 1 Sivan 5768 Misgivings on the Road to Damascus By Jonathan Tobin
Is it right for Israel to cross the United States by engaging in talks with Syria?
The dilemma that is always faced by small nations that come to depend
on larger friends is a delicate one. Even when such friendships are
built upon a solid foundation of common values, such as those shared by
the United States and Israel, sovereign nations are bound to find
themselves marching in different directions from time to time.
That's the situation that Israel has recently found itself in as its
government has pursued negotiations with Syria, despite the fact that
the United States had signaled its displeasure with that move.
JUNIOR AXIS MEMBER
Lebanon is particularly disappointing to the Americans since the forced
pullout of Syrian troops, who occupied the nation since the 1970s, was
an event that Washington could point to as one of its few post Sept. 11
triumphs.
Unfortunately, the Syrians have rebounded since the "Cedar revolution"
that followed their assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik
Hariri. With the aid of the Hezbollah terrorists, the Syrians have been
able to thwart those Lebanese who thought they were on the verge of
finally breaking free from domination by Damascus.
At the same time, international efforts to force Iran to end its drive
to attain a nuclear capability have stalled.
So the news that America's one loyal ally in the region was now
reaching out to Syria was not well-received in Washington.
The "land for peace" formula that would have Israel trade the strategic
Golan Heights in return for diplomatic relations, and normalization of
relations has been on the table for decades. What's new is that Israel
now also hopes to detach Syria from Iran's sphere of influence.
Though the talks were being facilitated by Turkey, there were few
indications that Damascus was seriously contemplating a future in which
they would join the ranks of Arab "moderates," and face the wrath of
both Iran and Hezbollah.
While the United States made no public fuss over the indirect
negotiations with Syria, the word out of Washington was that Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's timing was far from helpful to the goal of
isolating Iran and its allies.
For those wondering what would happen if progress in talks with Syria
resulted in an open dispute between Jerusalem and Washington, the
answer is: We'll probably never know.
Aside from the fact that the Syrians are themselves probably not
serious (Assad needs the conflict with Israel to justify his despotic
minority rule regime more than he needs the Golan), there is the fact
that Olmert himself is almost certainly on the way out. Indeed, the
allegations of ethical misdeeds that have rendered his attempt to hold
on to power an increasingly dismaying spectacle led many Israelis to
believe he authorized the talks in an effort to distract the public
from the scandals.
But even if this initiative is doomed to failure, that still leaves us
pondering the question of what the obligations of the United States and
Israel are to each other.
Given that both countries want to see Islamist states like Iran
defeated, and that they both see peace between Israel and its neighbors
as a strategic imperative, such disputes ought to be rare. But even in
the closest of friendships between nations, the interests of the two
are not always identical.
As much as every president (and would-be president) speaks of Israel's
security as the starting point of U.S. foreign policy in the region,
most of the disputes that have come up between the two countries have
been a matter of the Americans trying to push peace deals the Israelis
might not think are prudent.
At such moments, Israeli leaders have been forced to weigh the
obligation to defend their national interests against the need to never
allow any daylight between their positions and those of the Americans.
Thus, every Israeli government has, at times, been prepared to say no
to American entreaties. For all of its dependence on U.S. support and
military aid, Israel is an independent nation, not a client state.
But what has happened under Olmert has been something entirely new.
Though American supporters of Israel reflexively fear that the Syrian
talks or the current round of futile negotiations with the Palestinian
Authority is the result of U.S. pressure, virtually no one in the know
in either Washington or Jerusalem believes that these are the result of
Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strong-arming Olmert.
Rather, it's Olmert who has forced the Americans to follow along.
In the case of Syria, there was good reason for the Americans to be
perturbed. At a time when the United States is seeking to bring maximum
pressure on such regimes, Israel's opening worked against that goal.
Olmert may have believed the reported Israeli destruction of a Syrian
nuclear site last September as a good reason to talk to Assad while he
was still smarting. But the Americans view that episode in the larger
context of Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation. Since the
Israelis themselves see the threat from a nuclear Iran as the No. 1
strategic problem their nation faces, freelancing on that front is
probably a blunder.
The point is, if Jerusalem is going to talk about being on the
frontline of the Western democracies battle against Islamism, they need
to take the broader interests of that war into consideration. Like the
Olmert government's disastrous failure against Hezbollah, which
surprised and disappointed its U.S. friends, the Syria initiative was a
needless irritant to the alliance.
But that doesn't mean they didn't have the right to do it.
Just as when the situation was reversed and the United States pushed
Israel into pointless peace talks, there are times when Israel can -
and indeed, must -- assert its sovereign rights.
If an Israeli government sees a genuine opportunity for peace, it is
absurd for the United States, which has tried many times to orchestrate
Israeli concessions for peace deals with the Palestinians that were
just as ill-conceived as the current Syrian talks to cry foul. No
American has the right to "save Israel from itself," whether the policy
it is attempting to impose mandates talks or opposes them.
No amount of American aid requires any Israeli leader to sacrifice
citizens' lives in order to win favor with the White House. But the
same principle applies when it is the Israelis who want to take a
chance, even if their reasoning is just as foolish.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
Let him know what you think by clicking here.
© 2007, Jonathan Tobin
| ||||||||||
