Thurs. 6 Jan. 2011
HAARETZ
Ø The Syrian dance ……………………………………………1
YEDIOTH AHRONOTH
Ø Obama and Syrian trap…………………………………...….3
Ø 64% of Turks: Freeze ties with Israel………………………..5
THE JEWISH WEEK
Ø The Israel-Syria track: opportunity or distraction?...... 7
ONLINE OPIONION
Ø A clueless US Foreign Policy on Syria……………………...8
HURRIYET
Ø The Syrian Turkish-Israeli rapprochement…………….…..11
Ø Murder most foul…………………………………………...14
JERUSALEM POST
Ø Candidly Speaking: Israel, a corrupt society? ……………..18
NYTIMES
Ø Editorial: Under Siege………………………………….…..22
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Ø Saudi Arabia captures Israeli 'spy vulture' ………….……..23
HOME PAGE
The Syrian dance
The Israeli-Arab conflict has included a ritual dance for years now called "The Palestinian track has reached a dead end? Let's go, Syria!"
By Elie Podeh
Haaretz,
6 Jan. 2011,
As in oil and gas exploration, drilling in the Israeli-Arab conflict has recently produced hopeful signs. Yet these signs, too, have long since ceased to interest the public, and with considerable justice. After all, the Israeli-Arab conflict has included a ritual dance for years now called "The Palestinian track has reached a dead end? Let's go, Syria!"
Since the 1990s, there have been numerous examples of switches between the two tracks, since the politicians' working assumption is that diplomatic negotiations cannot progress along both tracks at once. Yitzhak Rabin, for instance, preferred to focus on the Syrian track, but later abandoned it in favor of the Palestinian track, which ended in the Oslo Accords. Ehud Barak also initially favored the Syrian track, but after he failed there, he decided to move over to the Palestinian track - where he also failed.
And now, talks with the Palestinians have once again reached a dead end. So it's no surprise that the Syrian option is once again sprouting up. The convergence of several signs - U.S. envoy Dennis Ross' visit to Damascus, the appointment of a new American ambassador to Damascus and reports in both the Arab and the Israeli press about secret talks - evokes the possibility that perhaps the smoke really does attest to the presence of a fire, even if it is currently a small one.
Aside from the dead end on the Palestinian track, what has actually changed on the Syrian one? A great deal, but at the same time, nothing at all. Syrian President Bashar Assad's worldview hasn't changed. Ever since he took power, his stance has been consistent: He is willing to conduct negotiations and sign an agreement that will lead to a full Israeli withdrawal to the banks of Lake Kinneret, but not to normalize relations (as in the peace with Egypt ). All the rest - demilitarization of the Golan Heights, early warning stations, an industrial park on the Golan, and so forth - can be discussed during the negotiations.
What has changed, however, is the environment. Turkey is no longer Israel's ally, and therefore cannot serve as a mediator. And Iran has increased its influence over Syria (via a series of military and economic agreements ), as well as its involvement in Lebanon.
That last development is actually particularly interesting, because it creates a basis for distancing Syria from Iran due to the former's fear of becoming a mere appendage of the latter. It's worth emphasizing that despite the alliance between the two countries, Syria's natural place in the regional alignment is with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and there's nothing to prevent it from returning to that place if given the right incentives.
But what is Israel doing? Very little. It hasn't responded to Assad's proposals with the appropriate seriousness. It has plenty of excuses: Syria's alliance with Iran, its support for Hezbollah, and of course Assad's uncompromising position. Nevertheless, the Syrian conflict is riper for solution than the Palestinian one.
Most of the issues have already been resolved in previous rounds of talks, and none of the outstanding disputes (including the question of Lake Kinneret ) is anywhere near as significant as the problems of Jerusalem or the Palestinian refugees. And the advantages of a peace agreement with Syria are numerous and well-known; thus it's no surprise that many people in the defense establishment support such a deal.
But such a move requires a leadership decision. And so far, no Israeli prime minister has ever dared to make such a decision.
Judging from past experience, it is reasonable to assume that the current drilling on the Syrian track will also come up empty, since the composition of the current government does not imply any potential to exploit this opportunity. But one brave decision could alter the regional balance of power in Israel's favor and strike a decisive blow at the forces of radical Islam headed by Iran. So where's the Israeli leader who would be willing to take up the gauntlet?
The author is a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
HOME PAGE
Obama and Syrian trap
Op-ed: By engaging Syria now, US rewards rogue behavior, emboldens America’s enemies
Matthew RJ Brodsky
Yedioth Ahronoth,
5 Jan. 2011,
With the Palestinian-Israeli peace process returning to a deep freeze, the Obama administration is eyeing an opportunity to make headway with Syria. The theory is nothing new: If the regime in Damascus can make peace with Israel, end its sponsorship of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, distance itself from Iran, and reorient itself toward the West, then the US would further isolate Tehran’s rulers while giving a critical boost to peace efforts around the region. To that end, President Obama confirmed the new US ambassador to Syria and reports have surfaced of a recent back channel opened between the White House and Syrian officials in Damascus.
While Team Obama may see such a development as a panacea for what ails the Middle East, the reality is that Syria will simply use the opportunity to play all sides against each other and pocket concessions, while preserving the very status quo that Washington seeks to alter.
The timing could not be any better for the Assad regime. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon tasked with investigating the string of assassinations in 2005 including that of the pro-freedom, former Lebanese premier, Rafik Hariri, is set to hand down indictments in a matter of weeks. Hezbollah will likely be held responsible with the support and orders coming from Assad’s inner circle.
Moreover, just last month US satellite imagery revealed a compound in Western Syria with hundreds of missile-shaped items, functionally related to the North Korean-designed nuclear reactor destroyed in September 2007. For more than two years, Syria has blocked International Atomic Energy Agency access to the remains of the al-Kibar nuclear site and similar installations.
The pattern is already familiar. Damascus makes tactical choices for diplomatic engagement without making the strategic decision to change its worldview in a manner consistent with a state seeking either peace or a regional realignment. By engaging with Syria now, the US not only ensures that Damascus will not be held to account, but it rewards their rogue behavior and emboldens America’s enemies.
Fundamental misreading of region
Nevertheless, even if one buys the diplomatic snake oil Damascus is selling, there remains the problem of enforcing any imagined peace deal. The international community and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon have utterly failed to prevent the rearmament of Hezbollah now stocked with more weapons from Syria’s shelves than ever before. If the US remains incapable of stemming the flow of insurgents across Syria’s border into Iraq, what makes the administration believe it would be successful in enforcing an Assad commitment to stop arming Hezbollah in Lebanon, and cut support for Hamas?
The Assad regime always benefits from the process of peace, but it is the process and not the peace that interests Damascus. That is because Syria has no intention of trading alliances or stopping its support for terrorists as its regional importance rests solely on its capacity to light fires around the region. Nor has there been any change in Syrian rhetoric.
President Assad still considers Hamas to be a legitimate resistance group and preserving Hezbollah’s strength is a strategic imperative for the regime whose first foreign policy priority is regaining and retaining its domination over Lebanon. Simply put, for Syria, the rewards for a peace agreement acceptable in Jerusalem and Washington are far outweighed by the benefits provided by its strategic and longstanding alignment with Tehran.
Washington’s current flirtation with Damascus, then, only provides benefits to Syria. This distraction points to an American foreign policy in the Middle East that for two years has been built on a fundamental misreading of the region. Indeed, it still rests upon the belief that the problem is one of communication, rather than the decisions and strategic calculations of states and actors such as Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
President Obama came into office with engagement as his mantra, seeking to reset US relations around the globe. One can only hope the White House finds the reset button quickly when it comes to its current approach to the Middle East.
Matthew RJ Brodsky is the Director of Policy of the Jewish Policy Center in Washington, DC, and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly
HOME PAGE
64% of Turks: Freeze ties with Israel
Survey finds US, Israel seen by Turkish citizens as top threat, followed by Iran; only 27.9 percent say ties with Jewish state should be improved
Yedioth Ahronoth,
6 Jan. 2011,
Hint: the percentages in this article are the same in the Turkish press..
The United States and Israel top the list of countries that Turks see as a threat, according to an opinion poll seen by AFP Wednesday. The survey, conducted by the Ankara-based Metropoll research company last month, found that 42.6 percent saw the United States as "the greatest external threat," with another 23.7% singling out Israel.
Turkey's eastern neighbor Iran ranked third, listed by three percent of the respondents, while another neighbor and traditional rival Greece come fourth with 2.3%.
In response to another question, 63.6% said relations with Israel should be frozen, as opposed to 27.9% who said ties should be improved.
The figures mirrored a deep crisis between one-time allies Turkey and Israeli since May 31 when Israeli forces killed nine Turks as they raided a Gaza-bound ship.
Concern over the United States, a NATO ally, appeared to reflect enduring misgivings about Washington's policies in the region, notably since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which had sparked fears over the possible emergence of an independent Kurdistan that would claim Turkish territory in the southeast. An earlier poll had found that 86% of Turks believe on different degrees of certainty that the United States aim to divide their country.
Turkey's deteriorating ties with Israel and warm relations with Iran have sparked concern that the Islamist-rooted government in Ankara, in power since 2002, is taking NATO's sole Muslim-majority member away from the West. The government rejects the charges.
The Metropoll survey also found that 68.6 percent were concerned about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, while 22.7% said they would be pleased.
The figure was in contrast to solid public support for Iran becoming a nuclear power in Arab countries, the researchers noted. The poll covered some 1,500 people across Turkey.
HOME PAGE
The Israel-Syria track: opportunity or distraction?
James Besser on Wed,
The Jewish Week,
01/05/2011
I had a call today from a pro-peace process activist who expressed cautious excitement about what he termed “new hope for progress” on the Israeli-Syrian front (see this week's Jewish Week editorial here).
As JTA reported, Presidents Conference executive vice president Malcolm Hoenlein met with Syrian president Bashar Assad last week, and the Israeli press has been full of rumors that the Jewish leader carried a private message from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Late last month, President Obama exercised his “recess appointment” power and selected a new U.S. ambassador to Syria; we haven't had one since 2005, when Washington pulled out its ambassador after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Harari.
Is something afoot?
I doubt it, other than the usual use of Syria as a distraction when Israel-Palestinian talks go off the tracks.
For Israeli leaders, refocusing on Syria and making noises about how this time there really may be a breakthrough is a handy way to deflect attention from the latest breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian talks, or - possibly more importantly – to short circuit expected U.S. pressure to resume those talks.
For Washington, offering tantalizing but wispy hints of movement on the Syrian front is a time-tested way to send a message to the Arab and Muslim worlds that Washington is still engaged, still actively seeking routes to peace even if Israeli-Palestinian talks are in the deep freeze.
It's no accident that just about every time we hear rumors of secret negotiations with Syria or a new willingness of its leaders to talk seriously about peace, it comes in the wake of new setbacks on the Israeli-Palestinian front, or when an Israeli leader worries that Washington is getting fed up with all sides in the complex regional dispute.
I'm not saying looking for openings on the Syria track is a bad thing; far from it. Achieving an eventual Israeli-Syrian deal is in many ways a lot easier than finding a workable solution to the West Bank, far easier than dealing with Gaza. A settlement with Syria could end or severely limit the Hezbollah threat and cut into Iran's influence. Isolating Syria has produced almost no results, so why not talk?
There's a compelling logic to pressing forward on the Syrian-Israeli track and dealing with Assad – who, as Ha'aretz columnist Aluf Benn notes today, seems to be “the most successful diplomat in the Middle East.”
But we've seen this pattern too many times before to get too excited. The bottom line here is still the same; Israeli and Syrian leaders are skilled at talking the talk about peace, but we've seen precious few indications they're ready to walk the walk.
HOME PAGE
A clueless US Foreign Policy on Syria
Jamil Sawda (he works as a consultant to diplomatic missions and international organisations and has previously worked on the Iraq Desk at the United Nations Secretariat in New York.)