The Complexities Surrounding Syria-Israel Negotiations
Drafted By: Dario Cristiani
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR)
During the past few months, there have been contradictory signals about the possibility of war between Syria and Israel. These signals include military mobilizations on the borders, veiled threats about an imminent conflict and claims by analysts of the risk of a summer war between the two countries. This rhetoric, however, has also been accompanied by declarations of the willingness of both countries to restart negotiations in order to reach a stable and durable peace. These mixed signals have come from Syria especially.
During the past year, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has spoken about the possibility of peace and the possibility of war. These mixed signals make the state of relations between the two countries even more confused and opaque, and they add further problematic elements to an already complex and fragmentized regional system. The question of a negotiated peace between Israel and Syria can only be analyzed if the entire framework of the Middle East is taken into account.
The Syrian View: The Importance of the Golan Heights
Assad has repeatedly expressed the intention of negotiating with Israel without "any preconditions." At the same time, however, Assad has warned that if Israel does not respond positively to his proposals, then Syria would pursue war in order to achieve its goals and preserve its interests. Syria's recent military maneuvers near its borders with Israel seem to be signals of this policy. Nevertheless, it is likely that these moves are not signals of an imminent attack by Syria, but instead an attempt to place increased pressure on the Israeli government.
Moreover, such moves can also be read as a need for Syria to be prepared in case of an Israeli attack timed with a U.S. attack on Iran, or as a result of the Syrian government wanting to avoid criticism by internal factions more critical of Israel.
In bargaining with Israel, the primary goal of the Syrian government is the complete return of the Golan Heights. Bashar's father, Hafez al-Assad, had identified the return of the Golan Heights as the essential foundation for peace between Syria and Israel, and this interest has remained at the forefront of Bashar's foreign policy. Recent statements made by Bashar al-Assad are unambiguous about the importance of the issue to Syria. Speaking at the Peoples Assembly in mid-July, he said that "there was recently some talk about Israel's intention to resume the peace process on the Syrian track. … We support the resumption of negotiations in order to achieve the main principle which regulated the process from the beginning. I mean land for peace, in a manner that guarantees the return of the whole of the Golan."
The Golan Heights' importance to Syria is dictated by historical and ideological reasons (related to Syrian nationalist sentiment expressed by "Greater Syria”), in addition to strategic ones. The return of the Golan Heights could also be used by Assad as a card to strengthen his power within the country. It would represent a huge success for Assad and could give him leverage against radical Sunni forces within the country that have threatened his hold on power. Furthermore, upon a peace deal with Israel, Syria could become the recipient of economic investments from the United States and the European Union.
These factors demonstrate the benefits that this issue holds for Damascus. Syria still retains the possibility of opening its weak economy to foreign investments, and then redistributing the new wealth throughout the country to reduce internal tensions.
From a strictly strategic point of view, the Golan Heights represent a fundamental element for Syria due to the issue of water security. Water is one of the most important interests in the Middle East, and it is particularly critical for Syria, which shapes its foreign policy based upon water access.
It is especially important because it is still unclear what kind of impact the development of the Southeastern Anatolia Project (G.A.P.) in Turkey will have for Syria, and the strategic and diplomatic use that Ankara will make of it. G.A.P. is a regional development project mainly based on the use of the water resources from the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and their branches that originate in Turkey. In spite of the normalization of Syrian-Turkish ties in the last decade, the project is still perceived from Damascus as a menace to its water security.
The Israeli View: Land for Peace and the Problems of Olmert
The call for renewed dialogue with Syria is perceived as an opportunity in Israel. Nevertheless, the lack of confidence between the two countries and the contradictory messages sent from Damascus during the past few months are serious obstacles to an immediate start of negotiations. It is likely that some secret channels have been activated, but these attempts are only in their initial phases.
The strategic meaning of the Golan Heights to Israel has changed during the past few decades, even though the territory is still considered important by a large part of the Israeli public. Historically, the control of the Golan Heights was considered important for defense reasons, with the heights seen as a tool aimed at reinforcing the fragile strategic depth of Israel, and for concerns related to Israel's water needs, which has been one of the primary concerns of the country's leadership since its foundation.
The importance of these two needs, however, appears to be weakening. From a military standpoint, the development of ballistic missile technology poses a different kind of threat to Israel. Syria's current ballistic capability, such as the Scud B (with a range of 300 kilometers and the capacity of a 1,000 kilogram warhead) and the Scud C (with a range of 500 kilometers and the capacity of a 770 kilogram warhead), already represents a threat to Israel's security. Moreover, Syria's conventional military forces do not seem capable of attacking Israel effectively, making the Golan Heights less important to its territorial defense. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the events of the Six Days War in 1967, in which Israel did not have control of the Golan, Israel retains the capability to destroy Syria's military forces.
Indeed, realistically the main military threat to Israel comes from the so-called "second tier" countries such as Iran, which does not have a direct border with Israel but has a ballistic missile force capable of hitting Israel. In regard to the water issue, the development of desalination plants has reduced the impact of the problem for Israel, even though it is likely that it will remain a fundamental strategic concern.
Nevertheless, while there are many factors that push the Ehud Olmert-led government in search of an agreement with Syria, there are also many factors that push them apart. The persistent weakness of the Olmert-led government is one of these elements, and it does not seem likely that the administration will be able to take steps in the direction of returning the Golan to Syria. The government fears that there would be a negative reaction from the Israeli public, which would further weaken the administration's stability. A large part of the Israeli public perceives the Golan Heights as a useful defense bastion. Furthermore, the deteriorating situation in Gaza and southern Lebanon following subsequent Israeli withdrawals has created the perception that it is better to have control of the Golan Heights in order to safeguard the country's security.
Additionally, Olmert has said that Syria does not want to talk with Israel and is only using such rhetoric to open a diplomatic front with the United States. This, according to Olmert, is Assad's real objective. He also criticized Syria's preconditions for negotiations, such as for Israel to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines.