« If Iraq asked us, would we leave?
Sen. Clinton Channels John Paul Jones »



The Golan Factor

March 3rd, 2008
By JEB KOOGLER

Print Print

Studying in Damascus in 2005-6, I was struck by the Syrian obsession with the Golan Heights. Since the Israelis took the fertile territory back in 1967, the Syrians have made its reacquisition a central goal of their foreign policy. They tried unsuccessfully to retake the land in 1973, and they now jealously guard a UN-staffed ceasefire line.

The Syrian town along the border, Qunetra, is a wasteland. No one lives there. Instead, the Syrians have largely left it untouched since the Israelis destroyed it in 1967. Houses are down, buildings have huge holes in them, and the place is eerily quiet. When I requested to visit the city, I was treated with intense suspicion and only able to proceed when accompanied by nervous-looking Syrian police. The city appeared much like I imagine it looked after the Six-Day War - in fact, the Syrians have deliberately left it this way as a propaganda tool against the Israelis. The Qunetra hospital (click to see photo), torn apart by Israeli military might, is one of the most shocking monuments of the 1967 war and a walk inside the complex shows that the piles of rubble (see photo) have yet to be removed. A sign in badly-worded English makes the message clear: “Destroyed by Zionists and changed it to firing target!”

It would be a mistake to underestimate the extent to which the Syrian government is obsessed with the Golan Heights. In fact, some analysts have argued that retaking the Golan, even more than hanging on to Lebanon, is the defining goal of Bashar al-Assad’s foreign policy agenda. His support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and his alliance with Iran, then, is primarily a way of keeping pressure on Israel and maintaining bargaining chips to be traded away when the time is right. Interestingly, several articles that I’ve read recently have bolstered that theory, and have also raised my hopes that a possible long-term peace deal is not out of the question.

In doing some research on Israel-Syrian relations this week, I came across an article in Haaretz which reported on a series of unofficial, track-two negotiations that had taken place between 2004-2006. Apparently, there had been a number of talks between a well-connected Syrian-American businessman, Abe Suleiman, and former Israeli Foreign Ministry director-general Alon Liel. A range of issues had been discussed and, surprisingly, most of them had been resolved. The two unofficial negotiators had crafted an agreement that looked roughly like this:

As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years.

At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval.

Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret. The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel’s favor. According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran.

That’s one heck of a comprehensive plan, and an encouraging sign of the possibilities for regional peace. It also gives support to the notion of “flipping” Syria, since the article reports that the Assad administration seemed willing to end its uneasy relationship with the Iranian theocracy in exchange for the Golan.

It also emerged that one of the Syrian messages to Israel had to do with the ties between Damascus and Tehran. In the message, the Alawi regime - the Assad family being members of the Alawi minority - asserts that it considers itself to be an integral part of the Sunni world and that it objects to the Shi’a theocratic regime, and is particularly opposed to Iran’s policy in Iraq. A senior Syrian official stressed that a peace agreement with Israel will enable Syria to distance itself from Iran.

Unfortunately, when it came time to move the discussions to the next level, the negotiations broke down because of “Israel’s refusal to hold talks on an official level - and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an academic level.” (Haaretz) In other words, Syria was ready to go forward with the agreement and negotiate at a high level, and the Israelis were not. Interestingly, and the initial impetus for this post, there are now rumors that President Bashar al-Assad is committed to re-starting negotiations between Syria and Israel, possibly to re-energize the failed 2006 proposal.

This is a pivotal opportunity for Israel, Syria, and the United States. Alon Liel, who has been a key element in these negotiations, is in Washington this week meeting with Congressional officials as well as with Syrian Ambassador Imad Mustafa. If the Bush administration had itself together, they’d quickly set up a meeting with Mustafa, Liel, and Suleiman and work to get the ball rolling on this agreement. As is often the case, a little American pressure might be all that is needed to push this deal through.



This entry was posted on Monday, March 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 am and is filed under Foreign Policy, Syria, Israel. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    When I stood in the Eula Valley (below the Golan Heights) in 1974 and learned that the Syrians repeatedly attacked Israeli farmers from there, I knew why it was and is important not to return this land to Syria without certain, lasting peace.
    • ^
    • v
    I am ignorant in this area. What are Israeli settlements like in the Golan Heights? If they were to withdraw, what are they giving up in the Heights themselves? (Holly's already mentioned the buffer zone idea for security.)
    • ^
    • v
    Paca: The problem is not the presence of settlements in the Golan, any more than these are a horrid thing (overblown and the object of hatred) in the West Bank (the Israelis vacated Gaza, which was promptly turned by the resident Arabs into yet another wasteland). The problem with Golan is that it is a dominating height of terrain over Galilee and Israel "proper" which the Syrians routinely used to shell Israel "proper."

    http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/loge/7748/go...



    Israel has some room for retreat but should not go behind the true height of land, the watershed boundary.
    • ^
    • v
    Modern warfare is not the same as in 1967. Tanks and Artillery that would be useful with the height of the Golan would be decimated in 20 minutes by Israeli air superiority. The Golan really serves no useful military purpose anymore. However, it is very useful to Israel for it's abundant water resources which is the real reason Israel does not want to give it up. Israeli agriculture on the Golan is not really significant but it has become a significant recreational center for Israel.

    Israel has no valid Internationally recognized claim on the Golan Heights. There is not a single country in the world that recognizes Israel's claim on the Golan - not even the US. It's just another example of Israel's voracious appetite for land and water. It's no coincidence that the west bank settlements sit astride the aquifers and the Palestinians are not allowed any control over west bank water - not even to drill a new well on land they own.
    • ^
    • v
    Modern warfare? Like the kind that Hamas and PLO practice? It would be prime territory to use for attacks the like of which Israel is constantly exposed to. Pretending otherwise is ignorant of the tactical realities or dishonest. That the return of this area may outweigh the risk in some mind does not equate to there being no risk or reason. This is a country (Syria) who attack Israel many times, direct sponsor of international terrorism with an emphasis on anyone who dislike Israeli, and who refuse to acknolage Israeli's right to exist. I personally wouldn't give them squat.
    • ^
    • v
    EEllis - I am a Jew with 35 relatives living in Israel. I have been to Israel more than 50 times in the last 40 years. I know the Golan well - my nephew lives in Bene Yehuda. If Syria or Hezballah wanted to shoot rockets into Israel they can do so today - they don't need the Golan and the heights provide no more tactical adavntage to Kassam or Katyusha rockets than any other location.

    Have you been to the Golan? There is no place to take cover - anyone shooting rockets would be sitting ducks for Israeli helicopters or planes.

    Your attitude shows an immense dislike for Jews. You are doing Jews no favor by insisting they live in a state of war and tension for the next 1000 years. They cannot have a peaceful existence until they make fair peace deals with Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians - just as they have with Egypt and Jordan.
    • ^
    • v
    "Your attitude shows an immense dislike for Jews."

    That is the biggest load of crap pulling something like that to bolster your bullshit. I could care less who is on which side. Any country that has the history of Israel, regardless of religion on either side, would be stupid to give tactical significant ground to a country who refuses to acknowledge it's right to exist.

    If you've been there so often then you have heard of when Syrian solders would randomly snipe at Israeli's. You also know that about 75% of Syrian forces are in areas near Golan and that giving the area back in total would guaranty Syria's ability to attack without warning. You must also know that in 1999 Netanyahu tried to negotiate a return of the heights saving only an early-warning station on Mount Hermon and Syria refused and refused to sign any full peace treaty even if the full area was returned. If Syria would act like Jordan they would have most of the Heights back. Instead they prefer to be permanent antagonist and have no desire for any lasting peace with Israel.

    Strange how none of that was mentioned in your rant. As I said dishonest or ignorant.
    • ^
    • v
    EEllis - For your information Syria does acknowledge Israel's right to exist - that is why they have negotiated with Israel. Obviously a full scale peace treaty would enshrine that recognition. It's pure BS that 75% of Syria's armed forces are on the border. Show me a citation for such a fact other than some defensive strengthening at the border during the Lebanon War. Also it is not the Syrian armed forces which have VERY occasionally shot at the Golan, it's some the the Druze residents who have never gotten over being separated from their Druze friends and relatives on the other side of the fence. Lastly it is NOT the monitoring station which killed the last negotiations it was Israel's control over the shore of Lake Kinneret. Syria did not give a rat's a.. about the monitoring station since US and Israeli satellites as well as aerial overflights serve the purpose better.

    Come back and discuss this once you have visited and have some real skin in the game. You spout off like some expert when you have neither the experience or knowledge to justify your attitude.
    • ^
    • v
    No it is not BS though to be honest there is more to the story. The 1st corps, it's single reserve division, most of it's independent brigades are very close to Golan heights. Why wouldn't they be? Damascus is a stones throw from the northern part of the Heights. Indeed Mont Harmon is used by Israel as a monitoring post for southern lebanon. Well it goes both ways. A majority of the 30 thousand Syrian troops that are along the Lebanese border can be said to be "in the area". Now that doesn't mean they are all there because they are waiting for the chance to attack Israel and saying so would of been a effective counterpoint. Instead you came back with "It's pure BS that 75% of Syria's armed forces are on the border." and that I should prove it. The CSIS has a very interesting paper on the Israeli Syria military balance but lets face it we would have to spend days defining things like "near" and arguing over numbers. I'm just not that worried about it. Quibble with 75% if you want. We both know that the majority of Syrian forces are poised against Israel and the Heights are the border with Israel.
    I did not say Syrian forces shot at the Golan, I said they used to shoot from the Golan. Until Israel took the Golan Syrian troops on the border would randomly snipe at Israelis.
    The idea that Syria "did not give a rat's a.. about the monitoring station since US and Israeli satellites as well as aerial overflights serve the purpose better" is pretty amazing. They don't care about an observation post that actually gives Israel a view of Damascus and well as much of southern Lebanon? That belief beggars reason and logic. True the way Syria has stuck to the claim of all land east of the '49 armistice line would be unacceptable, because it would cut off 15% to 20% of Israels fresh water supply just one of the reasons.

    Lets face it your someone who took a position and will fight tooth and nail regardless what practical realities show. So be it. You know nothing about me and don't know my experience or level of knowledge, you just dislike my conclusion and the fact that it disturbs you chosen world worldview. It may well be the best move to return Golan to Syria, that is not the same as ac