Israel confirms talks with Syria

[JJackson]

Israel confirms talks with Syria

Israel says it is holding indirect talks with Syria to reach a comprehensive peace agreement.

A statement by the Israeli prime minister's office said both sides were talking "in good faith and openly".

The statement is the first official confirmation of reports in recent months of Turkish-mediated talks.

[AmericanPride]

Question: why is Turkey facilitating the talks and not, say, the US? Didn't Rice make a trip to the region several months ago with the intention of building a peace conference?

[Ron Humphrey]

Question: why is Turkey facilitating the talks and not, say, the US? Didn't Rice make a trip to the region several months ago with the intention of building a peace conference?

Although not necessarily the "right" answer is that when this is done with one of the Neighbor nations as the arbiter it holds less ammunition for other neighbors to ignore it since we're usually much nicer about acting as if we don't notice when they choose to do so. If your looking for accountability sometimes it's a good idea to put someone closer to the problem in the lead.

Now that doesn't mean we don't pay very close attention to whats being said.

[Ken White]

...If your looking for accountability sometimes it's a good idea to put someone closer to the problem in the lead.

fairly correctly accused of favoring one of the parties involved...

[davidbfpo]

Question: why is Turkey facilitating the talks and not, say, the US? Didn't Rice make a trip to the region several months ago with the intention of building a peace conference?

I am no expert on the region, but Turkey's close relations with Israel, which have not been diluted by the new Islamic government, suggests Israel trusts Turkey. Turkish relations with Syria have not always been good, but Turkish foriegn policy is good relations with all neighbours (leaving aside Cyprus and Greece).

Look what the Oslo process produced, why was Norway a better intermediary than others? I am sure one reason was privacy and few realised what was happening.

Regular missions and conferences to promote peace have largely failed. So the Turkish role should be welcomed.

davidbfpo

[Rex Brynen]

Look what the Oslo process produced, why was Norway a better intermediary than others? I am sure one reason was privacy and few realised what was happening.

Yes, absolutely. It should also be said that the Norwegians actually take the effort to go out and pursue mediation opportunities--its remarkable how many countries talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.

[bourbon]

Question: why is Turkey facilitating the talks and not, say, the US? Didn't Rice make a trip to the region several months ago with the intention of building a peace conference?

The U.S. currently does not have the standing or credibility to undertake such a sensitive diplomatic initiative. Further, this administration has been hostile to Syria since it took office. I have written about my displeasure with our Syria policy before, so there’s my bias, but I think it is safe to say that we are far from a fair mediator on this issue.

[AmericanPride]

The U.S. currently does not have the standing or credibility to undertake such a sensitive diplomatic initiative. Further, this administration has been hostile to Syria since it took office. I have written about my displeasure with our Syria policy before, so there’s my bias, but I think it is safe to say that we are far from a fair mediator on this issue.

I don't think it's necessarily about "fairness" because I think the Syrians would be willing to talk with us if we demonstrated even the slightest interest in doing so. We can offer significantly more than Turkey as far as being a "guaranteer" of the peace. I raised my original question because I think we've lost a major opportunity to bring a fairly stable Arab state into our camp.

[Ron Humphrey]

The U.S. currently does not have the standing or credibility to undertake such a sensitive diplomatic initiative. Further, this administration has been hostile to Syria since it took office. I have written about my displeasure with our Syria policy before, so there’s my bias, but I think it is safe to say that we are far from a fair mediator on this issue.

As far as credibility goes I think it very important that we be willing to recognize some of the realities of the world which so often seem to be forgotten. Whoever you may be dealing with in other parts of the world they are not us, and thus what we want and what they want won't always line up. In other words to use the phrase respected when referring to the US in other countries eyes is not always a good choice of words.

International diplomacy per se is often handled most effectively through means other than talk. The simple reason is that so many have shown they will talk all day and yet do exactly the opposite behind the scenes without one thought towards whether it's right or not. I mean why should they. There are a plethora of those who will give them excuse for failing to follow through on what they promise.

Ken is right in that the perception of our relationship with Israel can be a hinder to our effective mediations but I think it is still important that we stand behind why this is so. They have not as a habit tried to destroy everything and everyone around while on the other hand those around them have tried to do exactly that. Have they made mistakes, sure. But the difference is that they actually do something about correcting those unlike others.

Let's quit excusing the bad behavior of those who feel they must enforce some kind anti-Israeli agenda when a majority of the reasons are idealogical
and when they themselves are unwilling to be a part of the solutions for the Palestinians.

I for one am absolutely tired of excuses for why governments don't have to care about those they represent, but instead play these life and death games for power and prestige with the poor smucks who fight for them stuck in the middle.

I don't think it's necessarily about "fairness" because I think the Syrians would be willing to talk with us if we demonstrated even the slightest interest in doing so. We can offer significantly more than Turkey as far as being a "guaranteer" of the peace. I raised my original question because I think we've lost a major opportunity to bring a fairly stable Arab state into our camp.

You may be right about them negotiating with us , but the one question that comes to mind would be why should we directly talk to them when they are still so heavily involved in fueling some of the major instabilities in the region. I think about criminal security operations like when you send a buch of ruffians around to rough up the neighborhoods and then tell them you provide security as long as they pay. They pay you call off the hounds.

Same principle difference is that this particular neighborhood is much bigger and thus carries twice the consequences. Better think hard about how you want to approach those involved.

[JJackson]

Hi Ron

I was nodding along in agreement with your post up until

Ken is right in that the perception of our relationship with Israel can be a hinder to our effective mediations but I think it is still important that we stand behind why this is so. They have not as a habit tried to destroy everything and everyone around while on the other hand those around them have tried to do exactly that. Have they made mistakes, sure. But the difference is that they actually do something about correcting those unlike others.

Let's quit excusing the bad behavior of those who feel they must enforce some kind anti-Israeli agenda when a majority of the reasons are idealogical
and when they themselves are unwilling to be a part of the solutions for the Palestinians.

I for one am absolutely tired of excuses for why governments don't have to care about those they represent, but instead play these life and death games for power and prestige with the poor smucks who fight for them stuck in the middle.



You may be right about them negotiating with us , but the one question that comes to mind would be why should we directly talk to them when they are still so heavily involved in fueling some of the major instabilities in the region. I think about criminal security operations like when you send a buch of ruffians around to rough up the neighborhoods and then tell them you provide security as long as they pay. They pay you call off the hounds.

Same principle difference is that this particular neighborhood is much bigger and thus carries twice the consequences. Better think hard about how you want to approach those involved.

If you have read any of my post regarding this area it probably is not a great surprise that I disagree.

While much of this is uncontroversial in the US I would argue that that is more a function of the brilliance of the pro Israeli lobby and its effectiveness in the media than a reflection of reality. The US and Israel are the only countries on the planet where this would just be accepted without comment.
“They have not as a habit tried to destroy everything and everyone around while on the other hand those around them have tried to do exactly that.”
Is this true? As I read this for the first time I genuinely did not know who you were referring to. Israel seems just as bent on keeping all its neighbours in the Stone Age - so they can not become a threat. Israel should in my opinion be answering for crimes against humanity for its behaviour in Lebanon and Gaza. And while the US has Hamas & Hezbollah on its terrorist list (a capricious document which says more about its denizens targets than methods) I am not sure who the holders of the moral high ground in this bun fight are. I would like to be clear I am an atheist with no axe to grind in this dispute I am just very concerned that there is never going to be a resolution to the dispute while the US views the situation with rose tinted spectacles while sipping there AIPAC cool-aid.

“You may be right about them negotiating with us , but the one question that comes to mind would be why should we directly talk to them when they are still so heavily involved in fueling some of the major instabilities in the region.”

Ouch.
Again should that not be the other way round? Is there anywhere that the US is not heavily involved in fuelling major regional instabilities? While there is little doubt that other regional players are involved in supporting factions in the region the US is doing exactly the same but on a larger scale, the only difference being they invariably paint their proxies as the good guys, but I am not usually sure on what basis, on closer examination there seldom seem to be any good guys just a variety of shades of dark grey.

I view all these issues mainly from a humanitarian stand point. Where in the world are people suffering and dying, if the cause is man made who is responsible? Sometimes the answer is political/military and where it is the US as the world’s largest military, largest manufacturer & exporter of weapons, most active country in the internal affairs of other states and most active exporter of political ideology is often in the thick of it. This is why I participate on this site to try and understand the US military and its thinking and, if I can, try and nudge it into a more reflective role as to the humanitarian consequences of some of its action. I am of course aware it (the US military) only does what its political master task it to but these I generally view as beyond reason or redemption.

[bourbon]

I don't think it's necessarily about "fairness" because I think the Syrians would be willing to talk with us if we demonstrated even the slightest interest in doing so. We can offer significantly more than Turkey as far as being a "guaranteer" of the peace. I raised my original question because I think we've lost a major opportunity to bring a fairly stable Arab state into our camp.

I agree with you. However, this administration from day one supported regime change in Syria over any kind of reproachment. Secretary Rice engaging in talks with the Syrians would be a repudiation of seven years of aggressive posturing against, and thus a confession of failure, something the neoconservative persuasion is not prone to. Further, in the administrations thinking talking to Syria would "legitimize" the regime, which is in stark contrast to our attempts to legitimize Assad, by at best emasculating him in Lebanon and at worst targeting his regime with the Syrian Muslim Brothers.

You may be right about them negotiating with us , but the one question that comes to mind would be why should we directly talk to them when they are still so heavily involved in fueling some of the major instabilities in the region. I think about criminal security operations like when you send a buch of ruffians around to rough up the neighborhoods and then tell them you provide security as long as they pay. They pay you call off the hounds.

Same principle difference is that this particular neighborhood is much bigger and thus carries twice the consequences. Better think hard about how you want to approach those involved.

Ron, I am sorry, but we are backing the Syrian Muslim Brothers. It's hypocritical to hurl criticism for fueling instability in region against Syria, while we are doing this. These guys are intricately connected to the people who killed 3,000 of our countrymen on September 11, 2001. Our support for them is misguided at best, and at worst.....

[Fuchs]

Question: why is Turkey facilitating the talks and not, say, the US? Didn't Rice make a trip to the region several months ago with the intention of building a peace conference?

Because the USA aren't as influential and powerful or even as fair as some Americans believe. U.S.-organized negotiations about Israel-related troubles weren't really useful after 1979. The USA favoured Israel too much to be helpful.
This "a problem arises and nobody asks the U.S. for help" phenomenon is quite widespread. Remember the Kenya troubles? All external mediators were Africans. It's a myth that the world automatically calls for the U.S. if there's a problem somewhere.
It's also a problem of the Bush administration, which has spent instead of accumulated the political capital of the USA.

About the talks;
I'm pretty sure that the objective is to trade the Golan heights for peace and recognization as sovereign state and they'll of course include a stop of support for Hezbollah.

Whatever happens is imho irrelevant in the long run anyway, as Israel will only cease to exist when its ties to the West become severed and Western support dwindles. That will happen eventually, in up to five generations.
The Arabs needed about six generations to get rid of crusaders, the Israelis have only lasted for two generations so far.

[Rex Brynen]

Because the USA aren't as influential and powerful or even as fair as some Americans believe. U.S.-organized negotiations about Israel-related troubles weren't really useful after 1979. The USA favoured Israel too much to be helpful.

Not really--indeed, a Syrian demand in the current indirect talks is for the US to become more involved, since they don't believe the process is truly credible until it involves a greater degree of US commitment. Similarly, the Palestinians are pressing for the US to become more, not less, engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.

Despite Washington's tilt, virtually everyone in the region sees it as the only actor with sufficient leverage to make things happen.

Whatever happens is imho irrelevant in the long run anyway, as Israel will only cease to exist when its ties to the West become severed and Western support dwindles. That will happen eventually, in up to five generations.
The Arabs needed about six generations to get rid of crusaders, the Israelis have only lasted for two generations so far.

The (nuclear-armed) Israelis aren't going anywhere, and I'm quite sure they'll be around in four more generations. (I suspect Wilf has some views on this too )

[William F. Owen]

The (nuclear-armed) Israelis aren't going anywhere, and I'm quite sure they'll be around in four more generations. (I suspect Wilf has some views on this too )

Not that I would ever need to say to those here. - and I live amongst 6 million folks, some descended from the generation that nearly got wiped out and who won't go down without a fight, nuclear armed or not.

[Jedburgh]

CSIS, 3 Jun 08: Israeli and Syrian Weapons of Mass Destruction

Both Israel and Syria have long been involved in creating weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The attached two reports look beyond the narrow issue of nuclear weapons, and summarize developments in each country’s full range of weapons of mass destruction -including chemical and biological weapons - and delivery systems. Both reports are deliberately conservative, avoiding scare or worst case sources and estimates.

The link above contains both reports in a single pdf file. They can also be downloaded separately:

Israeli WMD

Syrian WMD