Jerusalem's rejectionists

[Darranar]

As though in spite of himself, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz admitted on Wednesday that there was no choice but "to examine" the signals emanating from Syria about the renewal of negotiations with Israel. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is apparently even less willing than Mofaz to display receptiveness to the possible new winds from Damascus. The Israeli nation could not "cope" with two peace processes simultaneously, the prime minister asserted on Wednesday, as though engaging in peace were some sort of edict or punishment. And the deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, stated in an interview yesterday, that peace with Syria didn't have a high place on the national order of priorities.

The recoil of these three key policy makers from seriously discussing and intelligently responding to a possible change that is taking place on the Syrian front is flagrantly unimaginative in the light of a more receptive reaction by others in the government. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has for some time urged a positive response, at the rhetorical level at least, to the Syrian feelers. The evaluation of the heads of the army, and especially the director of Military Intelligence, Major General Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, is that the new tone coming out of Damascus attests to substantive and meaningful changes in the political approach there following the American victory in Iraq and the security developments throughout the entire region in its wake.

Recently, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu added his voice to those urging Sharon to adopt a bolder policy vis-a-vis Syria. It is of particular importance that it was Netanyahu who, as prime minister in 1998, conducted detailed and advanced negotiations with Hafez Assad on peace in exchange for the territories of the Golan Heights. Netanyahu denied having pressed Sharon. Nor does he want to get dragged into a precise discussion about lines, for understandable reasons. Nonetheless, with his public statements, he is reinforcing the view that the circumstances that have been created in the region, not least the weakening of Syria, offer a propitious moment to reopen the channel to Damascus with the successor of the previous interlocutor.

Of course, the considerations of all those involved contain tactical aspects. The tactic that is undoubtedly guiding the Syrians in sending the signals to Israel is how to ease the growing American pressure on them. The IDF's advice to the government, to respond positively, is also rooted in a tactical consideration - how to enhance Israel's political image and avoid the accusation that it is in Jerusalem and not in Damascus that there is no partner for making peace. As for the Israeli cabinet ministers, they obviously have tactical thoughts relating to politics and popularity.

Haaretz

[JohnLocke]

1. Kick

Good post.

[JohnLocke]

2. Kick

Good post.

[tinnypriv]

3. Get out the Golan, give up the Ski resort

Get peace. Easy.

[JohnLocke]

4. It's not that easy.

Intersting link: http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/golan.html#woulda

[tinnypriv]

5. Jesus christ

You want me to respond to that garbage?

They have "HonestReporting" on their links for gods sake.

[tinnypriv]

6. In any case

You may not be aware, but I was paraphrasing Ariel Sharon.

[Gimel]

7. Totally

naive viewpoint.

[tinnypriv]

8. Take it up with Sharon

He says it, not me.

[Gimel]

9. Sharon says

many things. And this is not without qualifications. Quoting out of context is classic rhetoric.

[tinnypriv]

10. Find one example where I have ever quoted out of context

On any topic, out of thousands of posts, hundreds of which are copiously documented (way beyond what would be required even for a technical monograph, citing every kind of media imaginable).

To address the topic, Sharon says the price of peace with Syria is withdrawal from the Golan.

I agree. The difference between he and I is that he prefers the Golan to peace, whereas I prefer peace to the Golan.

I will perhaps conceed the fact that maybe I shouldn't rely on the words of Sharon, given that he is a compulsive liar, terrorist and murderous thug, but I hardly see how that'd help your argument.

[Gimel]

11. Your assumption is naive

Of course you quoted Sharon out of context:

"Get out the Golan, give up the Ski resort" These words were not spoken in a vacuum.

Your assumption that it is simple to get peace was the context is naive. I know Sharon was talking up this deal in order to open negotiations with Syria. However, Syria's starting point is to open where the last negotiations broke off, which is not Israel's . Therefore, there was no simple road to peace. It happens every time. Barak wanted the same, as did Netenyahu.

[tinnypriv]

12. "paraphrased"

If you see something in quotes, assume it is correct.

If you don't want to assume, and would like to waste some time, consult the citations I give.

On the topic: Sharon has no intentions whatsoever of opening negotiations with Syria, as you can easily determine by the fact that he has shot down even minor peace proposals from Syria, recently.

Check, for example "The Syrian Proposal", 3 Dec 2003, Ma'ariv, where it is stated that Syria attempted to propose a "formula for quiet in the North", namely an "end to IAF flights over Lebanon in exchange for an end to Hezbollah attacks".

Israeli government officials cited in the article immediately played-down even this (never mind talks on the Golan), and the immediate military response was an increase in the overflights.

Note that this proposal came after Israel had bombed Syrian territory, after it had "buzzed" Assad's palace, after it had tried threatening war-games in the North (transparently directed at Syria) and after the Israeli press had loudly reported that Israel had "warned Assad" "his regime is in danger".

If you doubt any of the above, or think the quotes are "out of context" you can be provided with the appropriate scans of the Israeli newspapers if you like.